Business before Questions
	 — 
	Canterbury City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 20 December.

Leeds City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 20 December.

Nottingham City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 20 December.

Reading Borough Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 20 December.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Household Energy Bills

Alan Whitehead: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Bill Esterson: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Meg Hillier: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Jim McGovern: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Edward Davey: Helping people with energy bills is a top priority for us, so we have a range of initiatives including tariff reforms, energy-saving policies and direct help to cut the bills of those on the lowest incomes. From our consultation on proposals to help to get consumers on the cheapest tariffs to the green deal, and from the warm home discount to our promotion of collective switching, this Government will do whatever we can to help people and businesses to combat the effects of rising energy prices.

Alan Whitehead: Has the Secretary of State had a chance to peruse the report just produced by the Committee on Climate Change on the customer price differential between a renewable-rich strategy and a gas-rich strategy? Does he agree that that could represent a sixfold difference in long-term price increases for customers? Does he agree with the committee’s view, and will he be sharing his views with the Chancellor shortly?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman got a lot of questions in there. I have looked at the headlines but I cannot say that I have read the full report, although I certainly intend to do so. I agree that it poses some challenges to those who debate energy policy, because it suggests that with a high gas price prediction, we could see energy bills going up by, I think, £600, whereas under a renewables strategy it would be only £100. The Government are adopting a mixed-energy approach, so that we are not dependent on any single energy source and can therefore manage the risks, because we cannot know the future of gas prices or predict how the cost of renewables will go down. I believe that our approach is the best one for the British economy.

Bill Esterson: The cost of energy is crucial for the nearly 10,000 pensioners in my constituency, and I am worried about the Government’s policy to get people on to the lowest tariff. What would happen if the energy companies simply raised the price of the lowest tariff? How would the Secretary of State address that problem?

Edward Davey: We have taken a balanced approach in our tariff reform proposals, on which we are now consulting. We have tried to ensure that those people who are on so-called dead tariffs, or on unnecessarily high tariffs, will automatically be switched down to the lowest tariff, given their preferences. We have also tried to ensure that there will still be competition, in that there will be four classes of core tariff so that the energy companies will be able to compete using those tariffs. The key is to try to help people who do not engage with the energy market to get a good deal, as well as to ensure that competition can deliver for consumers and for businesses.

Meg Hillier: With respect, the Energy Secretary has not answered my hon. Friend’s question. How are the Government going to ensure that the energy companies do not simply raise the price of their lowest tariff so that it is no longer as low as it was in the past?

Edward Davey: With respect, I did answer the question. It involves something called competition. On this side of the House, we understand competition and how it supports consumers. I have to say to Opposition Members that an awful lot of people were asking the last Labour Government why they did not sort out the multitude of tariffs that were creating complexity and confusion and getting in the way of competition. Through our simplification, we are helping the most vulnerable people and those who have been on dead tariffs and paying far too much for their energy, but we are also ensuring that competition can deliver for our economy.

Mr Speaker: I call Jim McGovern. He is not here.

Ann McKechin: The Secretary of State will be aware that Scottish and Southern Energy has indicated that pre-payment customers will now be able to enjoy the same rates as other customers. Is he going to persuade the other suppliers to do exactly the same?

Edward Davey: It is great news because it shows how competition can assist in this process. I refer the hon. Lady to Ofgem’s retail market review analysis, which showed that customers on prepayment meters can save an average of £65 and up to £152 by switching to the cheapest deal within that prepayment method. The proposals we are taking forward really will help people on prepayment meters.

Michael Crockart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to reduce energy bills is to reduce energy use? With that in mind, can he tell us whether he has reached an agreement with the green investment bank to help to fund the green deal?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: when it comes to energy bills, saving energy is the best way to save money. The green investment bank is engaging with my Department and the Green Deal Finance Company over the support it will give to the green deal. I cannot make an announcement today. All I can say is that the green investment bank is being helpful on the green deal, as on many other areas, and that it is a victory for this Government that we have introduced the green investment bank.

Luciana Berger: Energy bills have risen by nearly £300 since this Government came to power. I agree with what hon. Members have just said—that one of the best ways for households to protect against rising prices is to improve the energy efficiency of their properties—yet the launch of the Government’s green deal scheme has been shambolic. I listened to the Secretary of State’s answer and noted that he cannot tell us even whether the green investment bank is going to capitalise the green deal, yet he expects people to sign their green deals in just over a month’s time. The number of homes expected to be insulated
	next year is set to fall dramatically. The Insulation Industry Forum is warning that low green deal uptake will mean that 16,000 jobs are set to be lost in the sector next year. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will not let that happen?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady does not seem to understand the green deal, For a start, it is being launched on 28 January, after the soft work we have seen over the last few months to prepare for it. We believe it will be a huge success. I believe the green deal should have cross-party support, and I hope that the hon. Lady will confirm from the Dispatch Box that the Opposition support it. The green investment bank’s support for the green deal will not be direct; it will come through supporting the financial arrangements of the credit. I thought the hon. Lady would understand that. As for predictions on insulation, I think we should wait. I believe the green deal will support the market and that it will be a real step forward.

Luciana Berger: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, to which I listened carefully. We have been working on the green deal for over two years now, yet in five weeks’ time the Secretary of State expects consumers to sign a deal when they do not know what the interest rate and the cost of the finance will be, which I think will be crucial to the success of the scheme, which we all want. Rising prices are hitting all consumers, but their effects are felt most by those in fuel poverty. Two years ago, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), said at the Dispatch that his Government would really attack fuel poverty, yet uSwitch estimates that the number of those in fuel poverty has risen to 6 million under this Government. Analysis by National Energy Action has shown that even after the measures introduced by this Government, such as the warm home discount, funding for fuel-poor and low-income households will be cut by half from January. Will the Secretary of State now apologise for breaking his promise to the millions of people who will be feeling the cold this winter?

Edward Davey: This Government are doing everything they can to tackle fuel poverty. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), set up the review to look at how we measure fuel poverty, and that concluded that the last Government could not even measure fuel poverty correctly. We are using a whole set of new initiatives, including collective switching, using the power of people coming together. One would have thought that Labour Members would have used that in their 13 years in power. They failed to use the collective principle to try to help people; we are doing that, and we are determined to tackle fuel poverty.

Shale Gas

Andrew Selous: What steps he has taken to exploit reserves of shale gas in the UK.

Paul Maynard: What steps he has taken to exploit reserves of shale gas in the UK.

Kerry McCarthy: What assessment he has made of the environmental effects of shale gas exploitation in the UK.

Mark Menzies: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that safety and environmental concerns regarding shale gas exploration and extraction are addressed before shale gas reserves are developed.

Edward Davey: Shale gas may prove to be a useful addition to the UK’s diverse portfolio of energy sources, and would be particularly valuable in replacing declining North sea supplies, with benefits to energy security as well as to the economy and employment—but its exploitation will be acceptable only if it is safe and the environment is properly protected.
	Hydraulic fracturing operations for shale gas were suspended last year, pending consideration of seismic events in Lancashire. Based on the latest evidence and expert advice, and having considered the responses to a public consultation on that advice, I have concluded that, in principle, fracking for shale gas can be allowed to resume— subject to new controls to mitigate the risk of seismicity. I have made full details available to both Houses by means of a comprehensive written statement tabled this morning.

Andrew Selous: I want to see proper environmental safeguards and generous community benefits for the areas where fracking will take place, but does my right hon. Friend agree that shale gas has the potential not only to lead an industrial renaissance in this country but to play a serious part in dealing with fuel poverty?

Edward Davey: I agree that shale gas has an important part to play in our energy mix and in our economy, and I also agree that we must ensure that communities benefit and that there is proper environmental regulation. I have been very impressed by the way in which Members in all parts of the House have contributed to the debate and to the Department’s thinking, but I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who, along with the independent experts, has really influenced our thinking. It is very important for us to take the public with us as we explore the potential for shale gas in the United Kingdom.

Paul Maynard: Many of my constituents remain concerned about the parallels that they perceive between shale extraction in the United States and what is being planned in the United Kingdom. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about why he thinks that the regulatory environment here will be superior to that of the United States, thereby disproving many of the alarmist stories that are circulating?

Edward Davey: Let me also pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done for his constituents, who I know are concerned about shale gas. I can reassure him that the regulations that we already have in the United Kingdom are much stronger than those in many American states where fracking for gas has been taking place for many years. We have the regulations, controls and powers of the Environment Agency, the regulations, controls and powers of the Health and Safety Executive and the
	regulations, controls and powers of my own Department, so we already have a strong regulatory regime. However, if the exploration suggests that there is potential for commercial development and we move in that direction, we will keep that regime under review, and will tighten and strengthen it if necessary. Today’s announcement is about new controls to ensure that seismicity is not a problem.

Kerry McCarthy: I welcome the Secretary of State’s reassurance that environmental and safety concerns will be given a high priority, but some people fear that those whom the press have dubbed the frackheads in the Government are rushing ahead with tax incentives for shale gas exploration without taking the time to look into those concerns first. Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure me that no tax incentives will be introduced until we are 100% sure that it is safe to go ahead with fracking in this country?

Edward Davey: I do not think that anyone has described me as a frackhead. My job is to make certain that the environmental and safety controls are there, and I believe that the work that we have done, particularly on the seismicity aspect but also on other aspects, can reassure the public in that regard. I am determined to ensure that the environment is properly protected, and as Members will see if they read my statement, I have also commissioned a study of the potential impact of shale gas exploration on greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that that will reassure people on the environmental side as well.

Mark Menzies: I welcomed the announcement of the formation of the Office for Unconventional Gas last week, and I thank the Secretary of State and Ministers for all the work that they have done in that respect. However, some of my constituents have subsequently expressed concern about the possibility that the office is not fully independent. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that it will both improve regulations and be robust, transparent and able to respond to any concerns that Fylde residents may express?

Edward Davey: I repeat my thanks to the hon. Gentleman. The way in which he has stood up for his constituents provides a model for all Members. I can reassure him that the Office for Unconventional Gas will be a strong office, and that it will be in my Department and accountable to Ministers, so that Members can hold us to account in the House. One of its jobs will be bringing together the various regulatory bodies so that they are properly co-ordinated, and our work as we approach potential commercial development in a few years’ time will include ensuring that we have all the regulatory controls that we need.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that you cannot be too sure what happens once you start drilling a long way through strata? In my area, after a pit had closed a whole village had to be removed and rebuilt on the other side of the road because of the escape of methane and other gases. I have heard that a company is drilling within a mile of that area now. It may not be anything to do with this fracking business, but I hope that the Minister will tell people to keep their noses out, because otherwise there might be another explosion in the area.

Edward Davey: The whole House listens to the hon. Gentleman closely on these issues because he is an expert on drilling and all aspects of the coal industry. I do not know the case to which he refers, but if he wishes to write to me, I am sure my officials can look into it. He makes an important contribution to this debate, because he highlights the fact that this country has had to tackle methane emissions in the coal and the oil and gas industries, so we have a lot of knowledge, experience and expertise to draw on to make sure we can control emissions from shale gas.

Caroline Flint: I can see how excited Members on the Government Benches are about the potential for shale gas, but I wonder whether they will be equally excited if drilling starts in Wiltshire, Lincolnshire or other parts of the country. As the Secretary of State knows, we have always said fracking should go ahead only if it is safe and environmentally sound. We set out six conditions, and we will be looking to see if they are met in the Government’s written statement today.
	On prices, last week the Chancellor said he did not want the British public to miss out if gas prices tumbled as a result of discoveries of shale gas, but does the Secretary of State agree with the former Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), as well as most experts, that
	“betting the farm on shale brings serious risks of future price rises”?

Edward Davey: First, I thank the right hon. Lady for saying she will look at our statement carefully. I know that her colleague, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden when he was a Minister to set out the Opposition’s conditions. I believe that when the Opposition study the written ministerial statement—we gave a copy to the right hon. Lady before this Question Time, but she should have a chance to examine it—they will see that we have met all the conditions.
	The right hon. Lady’s main question was on prices. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden that we should not bet the farm on shale gas. I am absolutely clear that the most responsible and sensible way forward for energy policy is to have a diverse set of resources and sources for our energy. Some of the press and commentariat have got very excited about the possibility of gas prices falling, but the independent analysis and the International Energy Agency findings do not necessarily support that.

Mr Speaker: Order. This may be a suitable subject for a full-day debate, but the answers must not take that form. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for his recognition of that important point.

John Leech: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement that there will be some further environmental studies, because is it not the case that at present we simply do not know the environmental impact of shale gas exploration in relation to methane seepage and methane getting out into the atmosphere? Until we can be certain of the impact, we must proceed with a great deal of caution.

Edward Davey: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should proceed with caution, and we are doing so. The evidence so far suggests that the carbon footprint of shale gas exploration is only slightly higher than that for conventional gas, but I am determined that we in this country examine it seriously, which is why I have commissioned a study.

Carbon Capture and Storage

Mark Spencer: What assessment he has made of the role of carbon capture and storage in the development of future energy strategy.

John Hayes: It is a pleasure to answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, the Robin Hood of his age. Carbon capture and storage has the potential to play a crucial role in our future low-carbon energy mix, allowing us to benefit from the flexibility of fossil fuels without associated emissions. As set out in the annual energy statement, the Government are committed to working with industry to create a cost-competitive CCS industry in the UK, and to make that happen we have introduced one of the best support packages in the world.

Mark Spencer: What a privilege it is to receive an answer from the Minister who has won the award of Minister of the year! Does he agree that CCS gives us the opportunity to make use of coal, which offers us 200 years-worth of supply, flexibility within the market and the ability to produce our energy very cheaply? Will he come and have a look at the coal industry in Sherwood?

John Hayes: When I think of Nottinghamshire I think of my hon. Friend, and when I think of my hon. Friend I think of Nottinghamshire—how proud each must be of the other. He is right to say that carbon capture and storage can play a role in delivering clean coal, and three of the four projects we are supporting in our £1 billion competition are coal projects. I know that he visited Thoresby colliery in his constituency just a few weeks ago, and he will understand that CCS is crucial to our ambitions to deliver energy security in a way that reduces emissions.

Michael Weir: The Government have not met the deadline for the first stage of European Union funding for CCS, yet the gas strategy looks to the construction of about 30 new gas-fired power stations. Will the Minister tell me how many of those are likely to have CCS fitted from the outset?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman says that we did not benefit from European funding in the first stage. In anticipation of this scrutiny, I spoke to the European Commissioner for Climate Action just yesterday evening, making it very clear that we hope for—indeed, we expect—European support for the work we are doing. It was a very positive call. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will work with Europe to ensure that both what we do and what is done across Europe supports the development of world-beating CCS.

David Mowat: In his discussions with the EU Commissioner yesterday, did the Minister have the chance to raise the case of Germany? It burns about 25% more carbon per head than the UK, yet has just decided to go ahead with 23 unabated coal power stations, which will increase that differential still further.

John Hayes: I would never be so impertinent as to raise the policy of another sovereign state in such a call. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that the future of coal is clean coal. That is the way forward and it is why we are running our £1 billion competition. May I draw the House’s attention to the conclusion of the UK CCS cost reduction task force, whose members I met yesterday afternoon? It has said clearly that coal power stations equipped with CCS have
	“clear potential to be cost competitive with other forms of low-carbon”
	technology.

Tom Greatrex: In his evidence to the Liaison Committee earlier this week, the Prime Minister talked about the importance of CCS in relation to gas and coal generation, saying:
	“Here are some funds. Let us have demonstrator projects and all the rest of it.”
	The “all the rest of it” is the European Commission saying in correspondence to me that the UK did not secure up to €600 million of match funding because the Treasury would not confirm co-funding. It is also the Cabinet Office project assessment review—it is previously unpublished but I have obtained a copy—stating that “only” £200 million is “available”. How does the Minister expect there ever to be progress in developing commercial CCS if the Government’s financial commitment falls so far short of the Prime Minister’s warm words?

John Hayes: I can tell the hon. Gentleman, although I am in a sense disappointed to do so, because he will not have been privy to the information I gave the House until I provided it a few moments ago, that that was not the reason given by the European Commissioner—[Interruption.] The Commissioner did not say that to me in our telephone conversation. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will know that in that first round no CCS project received support—there was some thought that a French project might, but in the end it did not. The second round will begin next spring and will be completed next year. I have made it very clear that we will work as a Government, with Europe, to ensure that our projects have the very best chance of receiving that additional funding.

Decarbonisation

Katy Clark: Whether it is his policy to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

Joan Walley: Whether it is his policy to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

William Bain: Whether it is his policy to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

Julian Huppert: Whether it is his policy to include a decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill.

Gregory Barker: The coalition Government are absolutely committed to achieving substantial cuts in carbon from our electricity sector by 2030; that is entirely consistent with the targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We have also announced that we will take a power to set a legally binding decarbonisation target for the electricity sector specifically as a Government amendment to the Energy Bill.

Katy Clark: I am grateful to hear that, and I very much hope that the target we set will be the right one to ensure that we meet our commitments to cut emissions by 2050, because it is very clear that we need a target. Will the Minister say what he believes that will be?

Gregory Barker: We will ensure that if we take such a power, it will be to enable us to meet our climate change commitments. The important thing is to see any power in the context of setting the overall carbon budget for the period 2028 to 2032 and beyond.

Joan Walley: But is the Minister just delaying the decision until after the general election? Is he now accepting the advice of the Committee on Climate Change that the Government’s dash for gas perpetuates the stop-start approach to investment in low-carbon technologies? We need certainty for investment.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Lady, my former Environmental Audit Committee colleague, is absolutely right to say that we need certainty for investment. The CBI has said that the Energy Bill
	“sends a strong signal to investors”.
	Energy UK says:
	“This energy bill is a big and positive step forward.”
	The right time to decide on a decarbonisation target for 2030 will be when we set the fifth carbon budget, which must be set by June 2016. It is at that point, when we can take it in the context of the whole economy and the economic effort to meet our decarbonisation targets, that we will decide whether we need to set an additional target.

William Bain: It is interesting that the Conservative part of the coalition is answering this question, rather than the Liberal Democrat part. Will the Minister not admit that the chief executive of WWF UK had a very good point when he said recently that the lack of a 2030 decarbonisation strategy in the Bill will undermine the certainty of long-term investment in renewable energy supply chains and that that is a clear failure of leadership by the Prime Minister?

Gregory Barker: I am afraid that I could not disagree more. If we look at the people who will be putting billions of pounds into decarbonisation, and if we consider what the industry is now saying, we can see that there is genuine transparency, longevity and certainty as a result of the Energy Bill. I understand the concerns of WWF, but now we have published the Bill the need for additional legislation to give certainty falls away. As
	I said, we will consider the need for a decarbonisation target as part of setting the fifth carbon budget for 2028 to 2032, which will happen in 2016.

Julian Huppert: I agree that certainty is needed for investors, and I hear that from the Cambridge cleantech cluster and others. I very much welcome the proposed power for the Secretary of State to set a target, but would the Minister support the Secretary of State in setting such a target?

Gregory Barker: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is a unanimous view among DECC Ministers. We think there is significant merit in a target, but the right time to decide whether we should set one and what it should be will be when we set the fifth carbon budget, which has to be done by June 2016. I reiterate that investor certainty, which was not there before we published the Bill, is now there in spades. I think we can all move forward and look to a future full of investment in a very exciting sector.

Peter Lilley: My UK energy app tells me that of the electricity generated in this country and lighting us, nearly 80% comes from burning hydrocarbons, 16% from nuclear power and, despite all those windmills onshore and offshore, a derisory 1.3% from wind power. Is it credible to suggest that over the next 18 years we will have replaced all that hydrocarbon and our ageing power stations with windmills, or will we just have black-outs?

Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend points out that we inherited an appalling level of renewables deployment. We are now changing that very quickly, but he is quite wrong to think that we are seeking to place the entire UK capacity with renewables alone. Nuclear will play a strong role and there will be a big role for gas in the future. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, what we need is a diverse, clean energy mix and that includes a range of technologies. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be slightly less afraid of the future than he seems to be at the moment.

Anne McIntosh: If nuclear is indeed to be part of the decarbonisation mix, have the Government factored in the long lead-in for planning applications for nuclear power stations?

Gregory Barker: We are very confident that we have the right framework in place to deliver the new nuclear build programme on time as anticipated as part of our energy road map.

Caroline Flint: The Minister says that the reason the Government cannot set a decarbonisation target is that the fifth carbon budget, which covers 2030, will not be set until 2016, but the third and the fourth carbon budgets, which run till 2027, have already been set. If that is the only objection, why does the Minister not use the power in the Energy Bill, end the uncertainty and set an interim decarbonisation target for 2020 or 2025?

Gregory Barker: I know that the right hon. Lady and the Opposition love a target and would love more targets, but everyone is agreed that what we want is
	certainty, not targets. We want a simple architecture. Overall, there are too many targets. What we need is real clarity to be certain that we deliver against those key targets. As I said, we are open-minded about the issue of a decarbonisation target, but we want to assess it at the right time.

Caroline Flint: If that is the best answer that the Minister can provide, it is no wonder that the DECC team loses out time and again when faced with arguments from the Treasury. Not only have the Government failed to set a decarbonisation target, but we have seen the blocking of the appointment of David Kennedy as permanent secretary, and now they are proposing a gas strategy that would blow a hole through our climate targets. Before the last election, the right hon. Gentleman told Members that the Conservatives
	“attach the highest importance to the full implementation of the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations”––[Official Report, Climate Change Public Bill Committee, 24 June 2008; c. 60.]
	and that the Conservative party in government would implement the advice in full. Will he confirm today that if the Government opt for 37 GW of new gas, as their strategy proposes, for the first time ever Ministers would have to reject advice from the Committee on Climate Change and rewrite the fourth carbon budget?

Gregory Barker: The right hon. Lady clearly does not understand the difference between sensitivity modelling, which shows a whole range of potential outcomes, and a Government plan going forward. She should look at our central forecast. I can assure her that we take the advice of the Committee on Climate Change extremely seriously, but we are delighted that as a result of the publication of the Energy Bill, we now have the certainty that was not there a couple of weeks ago, and industry is speaking up in a chorus of approval of the steps that this coalition Government are taking. We will deliver a transformation in the UK energy sector and the market will deliver the billions and billions of pounds of investment to make it happen.

International Climate Change Agreement

Graham Stuart: If he will make it his policy to seek bilateral agreements in advance of a new international climate change agreement.

Gregory Barker: The best strategy to avoid dangerous climate change must be agreeing a new global deal in 2015. However, while pressing for this, we are also working hard with other countries to encourage low carbon growth through effective bilateral partnerships. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to GLOBE International for the important work that they are doing in this area too.

Graham Stuart: Following the outcomes at Doha, it is clear that we need to reconsider how we use our political capital to get a successful deal in 2015. Does the Minister agree with GLOBE’s analysis that much greater focus should be given to supporting action at national level to put in place climate legislation and regulation in order to create the political conditions for that agreement?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is right. If we are to see progress that allows us to clinch that global deal in 2015, we need much more momentum and we need to build momentum at national level as well. The UK has led by example but we are also now engaged with countries such as South Korea, China and Mexico, and other countries with which GLOBE is familiar, to see how we can work together in partnership to drive real progress on the ground, as well as with the private sector.

Nick Smith: May I press the Minister on that? How much of the UK funds delivered through the international climate fund will benefit businesses in Britain’s low carbon sector?

Gregory Barker: I am delighted to say that making sure that our international climate fund benefits the UK low carbon sector is a key aim of our policy. That is why I took a trade mission—the largest ever green trade mission—to east Africa in October, and I will be going in the new year to the middle east, taking more of our renewables companies, to make sure that where we are supporting developing countries, UK industry gets the benefit of that, and in the long term, probably more than the total spend.

Energy Infrastructure Investment

Mary Glindon: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the implications of the autumn statement for investment in new energy infrastructure.

Nicholas Dakin: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the implications of the autumn statement for investment in new energy infrastructure.

John Hayes: My Department and the Treasury regularly discuss how to incentivise investment in new energy infrastructure. That is why we were able to reach agreement, paving the way for the introduction of the Energy Bill and the Chancellor’s autumn statement. These enable us to meet our legally binding carbon reduction and renewable energy obligations and ensure the investment required to bring affordable power to our nation.

Mary Glindon: Given the recent announcement on consumer price rises, how will the Minister ensure that decisions over the next six months on investments in new nuclear generation capacity, before the Energy Bill is even on the statute book, will be made at the lowest possible cost to consumers?

John Hayes: The arrangements in the Energy Bill allow for precisely the eventuality that the hon. Lady describes: they allow final investment decisions to be made in concert with contracts for difference. She will know that we are in ongoing discussions about the Hinkley Point development. I cannot say too much about its commerciality, but she should know that we intend to proceed with that with alacrity and diligence. I am confident that new nuclear can play its part in an energy mix that is fit for the future.

Nicholas Dakin: Centrica recently pulled out of investment in a new energy plant at Scawby Brook, and the Siemens and Able UK renewables investment on the Humber, although hopeful, are still uncertain. How will the Government ensure that areas such as the Humber do not miss out on opportunities for investment and jobs because of ongoing uncertainty?

John Hayes: The Energy Bill brings a framework of certainty that will allow investors to be confident about the Government’s direction of travel. I am obliged to say that, frankly, those decisions could have been made five, 10 or perhaps 15 years earlier, given that we knew that our energy infrastructure was ageing and that we would have to rejuvenate it by means of legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right to make the case for the Humber. I have met one of his near neighbours to discuss that, and I will be happy to meet him and delighted to meet representatives of his community to discuss what we can do to assist his cause that we are not already doing.

Tim Farron: Cumbria has the fastest flowing water in England, a strong, well developed and world-class hydro-technology industry and strong public support for hydro-technology schemes, so will the Minister strongly consider energy infrastructure schemes for hydro-technology in Cumbria?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right that hydro-technology can also play a part. The critical point is that the energy infrastructure investment that has been discussed in the House this morning is central to our macro-economic plans. We are speaking not merely of tens of thousands of jobs, but of hundreds of thousands of jobs and new skills in his area and others. Given that I have offered to meet the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), I think that I should meet the hon. Gentleman, too, to discuss the specifics of his area.

Mr Speaker: That is tremendously generous of the Minister of State. I think that there is a glow of appreciation across the Chamber.

Nick Harvey: What can the Minister do to ensure that adequate investment finance is available to marine energy and its attendant infrastructure? Is he aware that it is now more than eight years since a marine current turbine was trialled off the north Devon coast, which more than twice exceeded expectations for energy production but has not come to market because of a lack of finance? If he cannot make new finance available, can he rebalance existing finance away from 30-year-old wind technology and towards the new technologies that could drive forward the process of decarbonisation?

John Hayes: I do not want to take the opportunity to put the wind up anyone, so I will concentrate on the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. He is right that we need to look at all kinds of technologies to achieve the mix that we have described. He will be familiar with our work on green energy parks and will know that six of the eight major wave and tidal energy projects around the world are in this country. I know that the Environment Agency certainly believes that, because it told me so last night. We are investing in that significantly, but I will look at it again because it is
	absolutely right that we are at the cutting edge of technological change when that can contribute to the energy mix I have described.

Geothermal Energy

Dan Rogerson: What steps he is taking to support the geothermal energy industry.

Gregory Barker: The coalition is supporting geothermal heat through the renewable heat incentive. Our September consultation proposed a higher tariff unique to geothermal. The coalition is also supporting geothermal power through the renewables obligation. We announced in July that geothermal would be paid at a rate of two renewables obligation certificates. Deep geothermal heat and power projects have also been supported by specific grant awards under the Department’s deep geothermal challenge fund and through the Government’s regional growth fund.

Dan Rogerson: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. This is an exciting opportunity for Cornwall, and the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has convened meetings in this place to discuss it, which the Minister was gracious enough to attend. Given the potential for jobs in Cornwall, the potential to make a base-load contribution to energy, and the now-legendary willingness of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) to meet, will the Minister agree to meet a delegation from Cornwall to discuss the potential of geothermal?

Gregory Barker: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s diligence in pursuing this issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), because their efforts have really helped to promote this industry in their region. We are very keen to see progress in Cornwall, which we estimate has the best geology for deep geothermal power generation in the UK. I will be delighted to meet them both to see how we can advance this agenda.

Shale Gas

Caroline Lucas: What recent advice he has received on the effects of shale gas exploitation on (a) water resources and (b) carbon budgets.

Edward Davey: We liaise closely with the Environment Agency on this issue, and it confirms that volumes of water used in shale gas exploration are not exceptional compared with other industrial activities that routinely take place across the United Kingdom. Any operator who wishes to abstract water as an alternative to using public supplies will need a licence. Additional water abstraction will be authorised only where it is sustainable and no risks are posed to the rights of existing abstraction licence holders.
	Shale gas exploration is at a very early stage in the UK, and its possible scale is as yet unknown. We have legally binding carbon budgets, and that should reassure
	the hon. Lady. In addition, I hope that she will be reassured to know that I have announced today that I am commissioning a study of the possible impacts of shale gas development on greenhouse gas emissions.

Caroline Lucas: On the first part of my question, when one recognises the fact that 4 million gallons of water are needed for every single frack, the Minister’s answer about the water supply is very complacent. On the second part, on carbon emissions, why do the official scenarios published last week alongside his gas generation plan set out an option for carbon intensity that is four times higher than the maximum level compatible with meeting our carbon budgets?

Edward Davey: We have legally binding commitments under the Climate Change Act 2008, and our carbon budgets have been set out for people to look at. When we announce strategies it is not unusual for there to be a whole set of analyses, including sensitivity analysis. Yes, one analysis showed higher carbon intensities, but there was also an analysis that showed lower carbon intensities, and I think that people have missed that.

Ben Wallace: Many of my constituents just to the west of the Singleton Well shale gas site draw their water from their own sink holes in the Bleasdale area and Bowland forest. Will the Minister’s Department monitor the exploration process throughout Lancashire, because if there is going to be a problem with the water supply, it will be in that part of my constituency?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Environment Agency will carry out the monitoring, but because we have increased the co-ordination of regulatory bodies, my Department will be aware of it. I hope that I assured him in my answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that the terms of any additional licences would have to ensure that the abstraction was sustainable and would not put at risk the rights of existing licence holders.

Capacity Mechanism

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to ensure that the forthcoming capacity mechanism is not unduly biased towards large, centralised, fossil fuel generation.

John Hayes: The capacity market is intended to ensure that we have adequate reliable capacity on the electricity system. It will be open to all reliable providers of capacity, including large centralised generation and other forms such as demand-side response, storage, and combined heat and power. We are putting in place tailored arrangements accordingly.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister not share my worry and concern that, in the context of the Energy Bill and every other measure, it does not matter that we have been told this morning that we have unanimity across the two Government parties, because there is no unanimity with the Chancellor? What he said in his autumn statement and what he said this week means that it is all about gas, gas, gas. I am in favour of shale; indeed, today’s
	Question Time has been destroyed by not having a proper announcement on and scrutiny of shale. The fact is that we now have a Government determined to go for gas with no balance in the energy economy at all.

John Hayes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the intermittence of renewables and the relative inflexibility of other forms of generation mean that gas is necessary to provide flexibility. However, he is absolutely right that if we are going to make an argument for a mixed economy, because that provides the best chance of sustainability, we cannot put all our eggs in one basket. The Energy Bill, together with the levy control framework —which, as he also knows, provides £7.6 billion for renewables, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear—enables us to achieve just that mix.

Topical Questions

Joan Walley: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Davey: Since our last Question Time, we have published Britain’s first comprehensive energy efficiency strategy and a consultation on electricity demand reduction; we have announced a landmark agreement across the coalition Government on energy policy, including a tripling of support for low-carbon generation by 2020; and I have attended the UN climate change talks in Doha, where we were able to make steady progress on the Durban platform towards a legally binding global deal on greenhouse gas emissions in 2015. We have also introduced the Energy Bill, which will have its Second Reading next week. It will reform the electricity market, provide long-term certainty to investors and ensure that British households and businesses enjoy affordable, secure and clean electricity supplies.

Joan Walley: Despite all those measures, in Stoke-on-Trent North alone fuel poverty is among the highest in the country at 25%—10,120 households out of a total of 40,000—and Warm Front has been cut. Given the delay to the green deal—the computer software could not be sorted out—and given that we still do not know about the loans from the green investment bank, what emergency measures will the Secretary of State take to help insulate homes and get in place energy efficiency in places such as Stoke-on-Trent North?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is wrong to say that the green deal is delayed. It is not delayed—it is on track. She also missed out a whole range of policies that the Government are taking, such as the energy company obligation, which includes affordable warmth, which will be targeted on fuel poverty. It is a very important measure and I think that people should focus on it. We are not complacent. We know that fuel poverty is a real concern, and that is one of the reasons why we have had so many initiatives, whether they be the reform of tariffs or collective switching. We are delighted that 115 applications have been received by our “Cheaper Energy Together” competition. That shows commitment across the country to help on fuel poverty, which is central to that competition.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Stunell.

Andrew Stunell: rose—

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman looks a bit surprised. We wish to hear from him.

Andrew Stunell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a Liberal Democrat, I am pleased with the progress that the Department is making on decarbonising Britain, but, bearing in mind that 50% of carbon emissions come from buildings, will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he is having with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about making sure that zero-carbon homes are on track for delivery in 2016?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. I know that he did an awful lot of work on this issue himself. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) is working on it and, when we discuss it as a Government, we will make our views clear. Zero-carbon homes are very important.

John Robertson: The Secretary of State will have seen that the big six have laid the blame for the recent price rises on the wholesale prices and Government policies. Given that there is alleged corruption in the pricing of gas and that we have got to the stage where the energy companies do not think that it is their job to worry about whether they put their prices up or not, will the Secretary of State get Ofgem to start to pay its way and look at what is happening to prices and profits in the gas industry?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for Ofgem’s role, which is not a view shared by his Front-Bench team. Ofgem and the Financial Services Authority are undertaking investigations to make sure that, if there has been manipulation of the gas markets, it is tackled in the strongest possible way. We will have to await the results of their investigations.

Julian Huppert: Emissions from international aviation and shipping are not currently included in the UK carbon budgets. The Committee on Climate Change recommends that they should be included, and that has been accepted by the shipping industry and aviation representatives. A decision has to be made by the end of the year. Will the Secretary of State confirm that they will be included? They are emissions, so they should be counted.

Edward Davey: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right that we need to take this issue seriously. We intend to lay a parliamentary report announcing our decision before the end of the year, as is required by the Climate Change Act 2008. In making that decision, we are considering carefully the advice provided by the Committee on Climate Change. We are taking careful note of developments in the international policy framework for aviation, in particular in relation to the EU emissions trading scheme and discussions with the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It is important to clarify
	that the Government have set the first four carbon budgets, which take account of international aviation and emissions.

Joan Ruddock: May I take the Secretary of State back to his statements today about investment? He has said before that there was plenty of confidence in industry and that investment would occur as a result of the Energy Bill. That is not the case for the 1,500 leading companies in the UK that have signed an advertisement demanding that the Government set the 2030 decarbonisation target because it is the only way to give confidence to the markets.

Edward Davey: The welcome that industry gave to the publication of the Energy Bill was extremely heartening. The British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Federation of Small Businesses, which represent thousands of businesses, welcomed the Energy Bill. The fact that we are taking powers in the Bill to set a decarbonisation target shows real leadership and many companies have welcomed that.

John Baron: Will the Government do what they can to support the billing stakeholder group’s key recommendation, which has been adopted by Ofgem in its present consultation, that would oblige energy companies to be much more transparent in their bills? That chimes with the Prime Minister’s statement, but we know that the energy companies do not like it.

Gregory Barker: I thank my hon. Friend for his dogged determination in pursuit of this issue. I assure him that, although we cannot yet declare victory, we have victory within our grasp. Thanks to the leadership of the Prime Minister and our determination to legislate, we are moving towards bills that not only offer greater transparency and clarity, but instil greater competition. I think that our final model will be based on the modelling that my hon. Friend has shared with us.

Alan Whitehead: Will the Secretary of State explain why he proposes in the Energy Bill to include contracts for difference that are raised from levies in the levy control mechanism, but to exclude capacity payments that are raised by levies from the same mechanism?

Edward Davey: They are intended to do two separate things: contracts for difference are intended to stimulate investment in low-carbon energy and the capacity mechanism is about security of supply.

David Amess: The views of the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) on onshore wind farms have been greeted with great acclaim in various parts of the country. What action is he taking to ensure that local communities that do not want such wind farms do not have them foisted upon them?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is generous. I do have the wind beneath my wings. He will know that we issued a call for evidence. That has been completed and we are considering the outcome. He and the whole House, including the ministerial team, recognise that community buy-in and ownership, and communities shaping the developments in their area should lie at the heart of all that we do. We must not impose what people do not want on them.

William Bain: Do the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) agree with the recent report by Greenpeace and WWF, which states that investment in wind energy could create an additional 70,000 jobs, help us to meet our carbon reduction targets, and boost the economy by £20 billion a year by 2030?

Edward Davey: Yes.

Charles Hendry: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has spoken about his support for geothermal energy in the United Kingdom. Will he drive forward the Department’s work with Iceland to develop that country’s vast geothermal potential? Does he agree that an interconnector is not just technically feasible but has the potential to bring vast amounts of low-carbon electricity, thereby helping our security of supply and avoiding price shocks?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend and former ministerial colleague left a huge record of achievement in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, including that of fostering greater links and a coherent strategy with Iceland. I assure him that the Government will build on his legacy to take that project forward.

Kerry McCarthy: Last week I met representatives from Bristol port to hear their concerns that the Severn barrage might be back on the political agenda, and the possible impact of that on their business. Will the Secretary of State tell me to what extent that issue, in particular the proposal from Wales, is being actively discussed in the Department? Is it on the political agenda again?

Edward Davey: As the hon. Lady will know, a study was done on that early in the coalition Government. It was decided that although the Government would not take the matter forward, if a private consortium wanted to put forward proposals, we would study them. At the moment we have not seen proposals that we could back with any financial regime, whether renewables obligation certificates, contracts for difference or anything similar. I know that people are looking at the issue, but as yet the Government have not taken a decision to support any particular project.

Tessa Munt: In light of today’s announcement, does the Secretary of State agree that fracking is not appropriate for the Mendip hills? The water that feeds the aptly named city of Wells and the villages that surround it in my constituency takes 900 to
	1,000 years to reach the spas of Bath. Will the Secretary of State ensure that communities are consulted fully about this issue?

Edward Davey: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that communities will be fully consulted. We have made it clear that the regulatory regime is strong, and it will be strengthened if need be. We have put in the co-ordination that will give her constituents the reassurances that they need.

Graham Stuart: What are the Government doing for those who are
	off-grid and use liquefied petroleum gas or oil-fired heating and have much higher bills than those on-grid? Those in rural areas suffer from poor support and funding for many public services, and they need extra help from the Government recognising their plight at this time.

John Hayes: I recently met representatives of the downstream industry to discuss that issue and we are indeed looking at competition, accessibility and price for those kinds of customers. I do not want anyone to be cold because they cannot afford the oil or heat they need, and the Government will take action to ensure that people are not cold or needy this winter.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for an action-packed next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. I also expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council.
	Tuesday 18 December—Second Reading of the Justice and Security Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the fund for European aid to the most deprived.
	Wednesday 19 December—Second Reading of the Energy Bill.
	Thursday 20 December—Launch of a report and announcement of a new inquiry by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, followed by the pre-recess Adjournment debate, the format of which has been specified by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Provisional business for the week commencing 7 January 2013 will include:
	Monday 7 January—Remaining stages of the Trust (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2013, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Colleagues may also wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement on Wednesday 20 March 2013.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 17 January will be:
	Thursday 17 January—Debate on the fourth report of the International Development Committee on tax in developing countries.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I welcome the fact that after months of prevarication the Government have decided to bring forward legislation on equal marriage. Does he join me in hoping that in debates that take place in this House, hon. Members will not resort to outrageous and offensive remarks such as those made by one Member who equated same-sex marriages with polygamy and incest? While welcoming the legislation, we have serious concerns about the Government’s decision to make it illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to hold same-sex marriages, even if they decide to do that in future. Although we would not want to force any church to conduct a same-sex wedding, the Government’s decision to make it illegal is wrong. Will the Culture Secretary look at that again and make a further statement?
	I fear that the right hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty in coaxing the Culture Secretary to the House following the antics of her special adviser. The Opposition support a statutory underpinning of media regulation to protect the victims of press intrusion and guarantee freedom of the press. The Government seem to want to threaten the press with statutory underpinning to control
	the news agenda. Will the Leader of the House confirm that, given the seriousness of events, the Prime Minister is thinking of giving back responsibility for media regulation to the Business Secretary?
	This week, the European Union was awarded the Nobel peace prize. When the prize was announced, the Prime Minister said that he thought it should be presented to schoolchildren from across the EU. This week, he sent the Deputy Prime Minister to collect the award.
	We also learned this week that the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted speech on the EU has been put off once again till the new year. The Prime Minister has repeatedly delayed a speech setting out the Government’s European policy no doubt because the Government have as many positions on Europe as there are Ministers. The Education Secretary would vote to leave the EU—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is an interesting Back-Bench response. The Policing Minister warns that Eurosceptics are fantasists. The Deputy Prime Minister thinks that repatriating powers is “a false promise”, but the Prime Minister thinks that it is a good idea.
	It is obvious that the Government’s approach to the EU is mired in confusion and hesitation. The Prime Minister will be at the European summit today. Following recent precedent and given the multitude of positions within the Government, will the Leader of the House confirm that, after the summit, the House will be treated to statements by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, rather than just the one?
	Given that we are considering remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill next week, will the Leader of the House ask the part-time Chancellor to make a statement updating us on how the infrastructure measures announced in the Budget are going? The Government have a Growth and Infrastructure Bill, but, out in the real world, there is no growth and not enough infrastructure is being built. This PR Prime Minister’s solution is a rag-bag of measures to cover up the fact that the Government have no plan for growth. Given that, I wonder whether, in the next Queen’s Speech, we can look forward to a united coalition Bill; a big society success Bill; and a “We’re all in this together” Bill.
	The Chancellor claimed in the autumn statement that his changes affected those
	“living a life on benefits”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 877.]
	who were still asleep when their neighbours go out to work. The Prime Minister refused to say so yesterday, so will the Leader of the House confirm that 60% of the people hit by the Chancellor’s real-terms cut in support payments are in work? The politics of divide and rule that the Chancellor practises is predicated on vicious, poisonous, nasty little caricatures. Can we therefore have a debate on whether the mother on maternity pay is a shirker; the father on the minimum wage getting tax credits is a shirker; the cleaner who gets up at 5 am is a shirker; and someone on sick pay recovering from an operation is a shirker? Those are the people who are hit by the Chancellor’s proposed cuts: people who are doing the right thing, and people who are trying to get on in life. At the same time, the Government are handing out a huge tax cut to their millionaire mates. So there we have it: the Government think that millionaires are the strivers while workers on the minimum wage are the shirkers.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the statement, although I was surprised that the announcement yesterday of figures that showed the largest quarterly rise in employment for a decade did not feature in her remarks. None the less, she asked several questions.
	I am not aware of any prevarication on the equal marriage Bill. We had probably the largest response to consultation of its kind in the middle of last year. It was perfectly proper for Ministers to take some time to get the response to that exercise absolutely right. The Secretary of State came to the House and explained that there are very good reasons why the Church of England and the Church in Wales have special arrangements. The reasons are absolutely clear in the response to the consultation, and will be clear in the Bill when it is published. Those Churches will have the ability and responsibility, as, for example, the General Synod will have in relation to the Church of England, to determine their attitude.
	I am aware of no plans for change in ministerial responsibility for the media. The Deputy Prime Minister attended the Nobel peace prize. My personal view is that the Nobel committee’s decision is welcome, but perhaps ought to have recognised that peace in Europe has been secured through not only the development of the European Union, but NATO. It is a pity both were not recognised.
	The Government’s European policy is very clear. The Foreign Secretary is securing a review of competences to consider how we can enter into negotiations with our partners in Europe to ensure that where powers do not need to be exercised at a European level, they are not exercised at a European level. The previous Government talked about subsidiarity, but never delivered. They engaged in a process of constant integration—an escalator of responsibilities and competences to the European Union that never went in the opposite direction. As the Prime Minister rightly said, when we are able to undertake a new settlement of competences and powers in Europe, the British people should have the chance make a judgment.
	The Prime Minister will be going to the European summit. In the same way that I wondered why the shadow Leader of the House did not talk about the latest employment figures, I wonder why she did not refer to the welcome news that jobs at Airbus have been protected. The Prime Minister will have an opportunity to reflect on that as he goes to the European summit.
	The hon. Lady talked about our proposed welfare reforms. She did not say—the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) did—that the Labour party is proposing to vote against them. Labour Members voted against the housing benefit cap, and they are proposing to vote against what is a fair proposal. People the length and breadth of the land know that in the past five years average earnings rose by 10% and that these benefits rose by 20%. They will be asking why that happened and why benefits should be rising faster than incomes. Many people, including those in the public sector whose pay is being limited to a 1% increase, will think it absolutely reasonable that benefits, whether payable to people in work or out of work, should likewise be limited to a 1% increase as part of deficit reduction. I heard nothing from the hon. Lady about how the Labour party would deliver deficit reduction. If Labour Members vote against the proposals, people will not understand why they are not giving priority to people who are earning in work.
	The hon. Lady talked about tax, and she might like to reflect on this simple fact. What change has there been in average tax rates for people at different levels of income under the Labour Government in 2009-10 and under the coalition Government in 2012-13? It is straightforward: under this Government, the lower one’s income the greater the reduction in the average tax rate; the greater one’s level of income—all the way up to £2 million—the bigger the increase in taxation. It is clear that under this Government more of the burden is being borne by those who have the broadest shoulders. By April 2013, as a consequence of the increase in personal tax allowances under the coalition Government, the tax bill for someone in work and earning the minimum wage will be more than halved. That is the fair way to proceed; that is the way this Government will proceed.
	I have to apologise to the shadow Leader of the House, as I have not been able to announce further time for Opposition day debates. I am sorry I could not do that, because I think many Government Members appreciated yesterday’s Opposition day debate. It afforded a helpful opportunity for the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) to confirm that he regarded it as irresponsible for the coalition Government to have secured a real-terms increase in NHS spending. He also said that he supported a Labour Government in Wales undertaking for an 8% real-terms cut in NHS spending. Such Opposition day debates are only to the benefit of the coalition Government.

Andrew Rosindell: I am sure that the entire House will be shocked, angry and dismayed at the continual incursions by the Spanish Government into the waters around the British sovereign territory of Gibraltar. This is an act of aggression. Will the Leader of the House ask the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to make an urgent statement on what Her Majesty’s Government will do to ensure that these illegal incursions into British sovereign waters are stopped forthwith?

Andrew Lansley: The whole House will be aware of my hon. Friend’s stalwart support for the people of Gibraltar and their relationship with this country. There were two incursions by a Spanish naval vessel into British Gibraltar territorial waters on 10 December. Radio warnings were issued and the vessels departed from those waters, and we have protested to Spain via diplomatic channels. The Royal Navy challenges Guardia Civil and other Spanish state vessels whenever they make unlawful maritime incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters, and we will back that up by making a formal diplomatic protest to the Spanish Government making it clear that such incursions are an unacceptable violation of British sovereignty.

Jim Sheridan: The Leader of the House might be aware of the latest statement on tax by Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt. He said he was “very proud” of its tax avoidance scheme. “It’s called capitalism,” he said. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to remind operators such as Google which operate and make profits in this country that they should pay the appropriate taxes?

Andrew Lansley: I understand capitalism to be about making a profit, not avoiding taxes, and doing so by satisfying customers. The chairman of Google, or any
	company that wants to satisfy its customers, should take account of customers’ views. The Government are setting out to ensure that people pay the taxes that are due—we are doing that more successfully than the last Labour Government—and we will make further improvements by introducing a general anti-abuse rule next April.

Christopher Pincher: Yesterday, I met an employer from Tamworth who had given a 48-year-old man his first real job in more than 20 years. May we have a debate on what we can do to help businesses, particularly small businesses, play their part in getting the long-term unemployed off benefits and into work?

Andrew Lansley: Like Members across the House, my hon. Friend will have taken great comfort from the latest figures on employment and employment opportunities, while recognising that long-term unemployment remains high. We are doing everything possible to reduce it, however, with almost 900,000 people engaged in the Work programme and one quarter of them having found jobs. In practice, it sometimes takes one, two or three jobs before people find secure long-term employment, which is the aim of the Work programme, but progress is increasingly being made to ensure that the long-term unemployed get those opportunities.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Given the huge cost of road crashes to the NHS and the economy and that nearly 2,000 people die and 20,000 people are seriously injured each year, and on the back of the annual Christmas drink-drive campaign, in light of the overwhelming support in the House for The Times’ cycling campaign, and given yesterday’s disturbing news that the speed cameras on the M25 have not been operational for a whole year, has the Leader of the House been approached by the Department for Transport about having a debate on road safety in Government time? It is an issue that concerns every Member.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I know it concerns Members, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s own work in this respect over the years. I will talk to my colleagues in the Department for Transport and ask them to update the House. At this time of the year, it is tremendously important that we focus on this matter, not just because of the Christmas season, but because of the weather conditions. It is really important. Overall, this country has an extremely good road safety record, but we need to improve none the less.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on the merits of leaving the European Union? Even the Euro-fanatic BBC decided that it was worth debating on “Newsnight” last night. Surely we should not leave such important matters to the BBC for debate; surely this is the type of thing that should be debated in this House. Opinion polls consistently show that twice as many people want to leave the EU as want to stay in it. Such a debate will allow people to see how many of their MPs agree with the majority view in their constituencies.

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure that the business of the House should be led by “Newsnight”. We in this House regularly debate European issues. We will debate things such as the Commission work programme shortly and, as I told the House, the Prime Minister will make a statement and respond to questions next week on his return from the European Council. I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I hope that what I said to the shadow Leader of the House gave him and others a great sense of assurance that this Government take seriously the issue of arriving at a new settlement in Europe—one that will give the people of this country an opportunity to make a judgment about the basis on which we have a long-term future in the European Union.

Nigel Dodds: On 27 November the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland published a report that showed a serious decline in completion and accuracy of the electoral register, with completion now at only 73% and accuracy at 78%, and 400,000 people from a population of 1.8 million not on the register at the right address. This is very serious. It is a Northern Ireland Office responsibility. May we have an urgent statement about what programme of action the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will implement to address this serious problem?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If I may, I will seek a response to the point he rightly makes from my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.

Michael Crockart: The charity Gingerbread has launched a campaign to ensure that single parents are not disadvantaged in the job market. In my Edinburgh West constituency, three in every 10 families with dependent children are headed by a single parent, which is more than 3,000 families. May we have a debate on what action can be taken to improve access to affordable child care and encourage more employers to adopt flexible working practices?

Andrew Lansley: From our point of view, one of the important things in this context is the overall employment situation, which is very good. We have seen from the latest data that the number of women in work is up 236,000 since the election, while unemployment among women has fallen during the quarter by 21,000. We have to ensure that women in particular are assisted back into work through the Work programme. Expanding access to child care is important. My hon. Friend will know that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced on behalf of the coalition Government that the number of two-year-olds receiving nursery care is being doubled to cover an extra 130,000 children, with an additional £200 million going into child care support under universal credit as well.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Leader of the House aware that the likelihood of a child visiting any green space has halved in the last 10 years? As we enter the Christmas season, is it not time that we started promoting access to the countryside for young people, especially when we know that learning outside the classroom is in steep decline because of the Government’s changes to educational provision and the
	independence of schools to make decisions on such matters? We need action now, and I say this as chairman of the John Clare Trust, a national centre for learning outside the classroom.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that schools must make arrangements for access to sporting facilities, including sport outside and in the open air, which is important. I very much share his view: we know that there are long-term health benefits associated with giving children access to green space, not just in the countryside, but in urban areas and new developments. As Secretary of State for Health, I had conversations directly with, for example, Natural England about precisely these issues, which have also formed part of our work in the coalition on finding ways to deliver our public health objectives right across Government. Using their new public health responsibilities, local authorities will be able to combine that work with their planning responsibilities in a helpful way.

Peter Bone: May we have an urgent statement from the Leader of the House on how he plans to deal with the redefinition of marriage Bill? As I understand it, his plan is for it to have its Second Reading in the new year, right at the end of the Session. The Bill was not in the Queen’s Speech or in any party’s manifesto. It is unique to bring in a Bill in this way. Will he guarantee to the House that he will introduce it in the next Session, after it has been announced in the Queen’s Speech, and that its Committee stage will be held on the Floor of the House?

Andrew Lansley: I can give my hon. Friend a statement on this point. It is our intention to introduce the equal marriage Bill in the new year. The situation is not remotely unprecedented: we have recently introduced a number of pieces of legislation that were not anticipated in the Queen’s Speech. Our intention is to introduce legislation, based on the response to the consultation, and I am sure that when we do so, he and many other Members will find it helpful to enable the House to express its view on how we can ensure equal access to civil marriage in this country.

Luciana Berger: On Tuesday, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was embarrassed by the fact that, by the end of this year, a quarter of a million people in this country will have accessed emergency food aid. He ignored the question. Yesterday, I had a debate on food poverty in the run-up to Christmas, and the response from the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) was that he did not think that food poverty was a useful concept. Will the Leader of the House encourage his ministerial colleagues to visit a food bank over the Christmas period, and may we have a statement in the new year in which they can report back on what they have learned about why people in this country are struggling to feed themselves and their families?

Andrew Lansley: I was here when the Chancellor was asked that question, and I do not think he ignored it at all. The hon. Lady must recognise that the most important thing we can achieve is to enable people to be in work. It is staggering to see the way in which the Opposition
	have completely ignored this week’s data showing one of the fastest quarterly increases in employment that we have seen for a decade. Despite the economic inheritance from the last Government, and despite the deficit, we are stimulating job creation. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that something like two jobs are being created in the private sector for every one lost in the public sector, which is a consequence of deficit reduction. The latest data show a reduction of 24,000 jobs in the public sector and an increase of 65,000 in the private sector. Since the election, the figure is netting out at something like 1.1 million jobs. The answer to poverty, whether it is child poverty or food poverty, is work. Work is the best route out of poverty.

Henry Smith: I very much welcome some of the measures that the Government have taken to tackle antisocial behaviour, but may we have a debate on chronic antisocial behaviour by neighbours? The Leigh, Sanger and Ferreira families in Black Dog walk in my constituency have been the victims of the Clarke family for over a quarter of a century. A debate on how we might further address such unacceptable situations would be much appreciated.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly in relation to his constituents, that will have been recognised by Members across the House. Today, the Government have published the draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The reforms in the Bill will put victims first, and they include a new community trigger that will empower victims and communities to demand that local agencies deal with persistent problems where they have previously failed to do so. I think that my hon. Friend will find that particularly relevant to the circumstances he has described. The measures will also speed up the eviction of antisocial tenants by introducing a faster route to eviction for the most serious criminal or antisocial behaviour. The Home Affairs Committee is looking forward to undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and producing a final report with recommendations in February.

Tom Blenkinsop: We know that the Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting that the UK economy will contract by 0.1% in this quarter, and that it believes that the economy will contract this year as a whole. May we have a debate on business lending? It was confirmed to me on 11 December by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) that business lending had contracted by 2.8% this year, and high streets such as the one in Guisborough in my constituency are really suffering due to a lack of funding to business.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are literally leaving no stone unturned, as Michael Heseltine might have put it, to ensure that we support lending to businesses—especially to small and medium-sized businesses. That is why the funding for lending scheme is so important; it is clearly getting going and significant amounts are starting to be lent as a consequence. It is also why my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills have together been pushing for the business bank, which will be able to leverage additional
	specific lending to small and medium-sized businesses—not only through that bank, but through many of the new challenger banks that are giving support in that market.
	The hon. Gentleman mentions the latest OBR report. He might recognise that the OBR has published updated figures on the scale of the recession under the last Labour Government, showing a total loss of gross domestic product of 6.3%. We are having to live with the economic consequences of Labour, and I think the Labour party should start from an understanding of the recession and the depth of debt it left this country.

David Burrowes: May I pick up on the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), particularly the last part of it, which the Leader of the House did not answer. As it is an issue of conscience, all parties will be entitled to a free vote on the management and scrutiny of the redefinition of marriage Bill. May we therefore follow the precedent set by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in a previous Parliament of holding the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, allowing all Members to exercise their conscience?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry if I neglected to answer that point—perhaps I did not hear everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) had to say. That is always a mistake—I should listen carefully to him, and I attempt to do so. I cannot promise what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) asks for. We will introduce and hold Second Reading of the Bill in the new year. When he looks at the Bill, I think he will realise that the Second Reading debate may well crystallise the issues. I share the view expressed by the shadow Leader of the House: I completely respect the views of those who oppose equal civil marriage. I recall listening to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who I thought expressed the Church of England’s view on the matter very well. I completely understand it, but I do not think that that view should necessarily be translated into the view of the state on what constitutes equality in civil marriage. That, I think, is the difference of view. Expressing that difference of view on Second Reading is the responsibility of this House as a whole. I welcome the fact that all parties appear to be giving Members the opportunity to vote freely on the issue.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. It is a curious phenomenon in the House that when there are fewer Members standing—and fewer are standing today than is often the case at business questions—exchanges seem to lengthen to absorb available time. May I gently exhort the House to be pithy because there is a statement to follow and other business. If we can treat these matters succinctly, that would help.

Nick Smith: May we please have a statement on undiagnosed cleft palates in new babies? The Royal College of Surgeons has found wide variations across the UK. In North Thames, only 42% of cleft palates are identified at birth, whereas in Oxford the figure is 94%. The Government really must do better by mums and babies on this issue.

Andrew Lansley: I shall endeavour to be brief, Mr Speaker. Perhaps there is a law of the expansion of questions to fill the time available, yet perhaps that time available— [Hon. Members: “You are doing it now!”] I am doing it now.
	This is a matter for clinical practice, and it is important that clinical guidelines apply in the NHS. It is the NHS’s responsibility to draw up the guidelines. I listened with interest to points made this morning that resulted from research, and I am sure that they will be reflected in the guidelines in due course.

Julian Smith: Next week, Yorkshire is likely to win its bid to host the 2014 Tour de France. UK Sport backed Scotland for this event. May we have a debate to ensure UK Sport now offers the same multi-million pound cash deal to Yorkshire as it did to Scotland, so that there is no tartan bias in the arrangements?

Andrew Lansley: I am very interested in that news, and I shall congratulate Yorkshire if it is successful. The matter is obviously the responsibility of UK Sport, but I will draw it to the attention of my colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and ensure that those at UK Sport are aware of my hon. Friend’s comments.

Diana Johnson: Is the Leader of the House comfortable with Ministers’ refusing to meet other Members of Parliament? On 17 October, I presented a ten-minute rule Bill on alcohol, relationship and drugs education that received cross-party support and the backing of 14 national charities. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), asking whether I could bring the Bill’s sponsors and representatives of the charities to discuss the matter with her, but I was refused a meeting.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will know, as I hope the whole House does, that I consider one of my responsibilities to be ensuring that the interests of the House and its Members are understood and acted on in Departments and by my colleagues. I will therefore take the matter up.

Bob Stewart: May I support what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and gently remind the House that an illegal incursion into British Gibraltarian sovereign waters is technically an act of war? What is happening at the moment is wrong, and we should do something about it. May we have a statement by the Secretaries of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs, as a matter of urgency, so that they can respond robustly to this aggravation?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reiterating the point about the incursion. I hope that I was clear and unequivocal earlier about the nature of the Government’s response.

Wayne David: As one who is very sympathetic to the idea of equal marriage, may I ask for a debate on the way in which future legislation will apply to Wales? I ask because the Church in Wales is
	disestablished, and has been since 1920, and because the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, has expressed reservations about the Government’s approach.

Andrew Lansley: I am indeed aware of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, but it does not mean that specific legal arrangements relating to that Church will not prove necessary, given its responsibility to provide opportunities for marriage for the whole population of Wales. I am not an expert on the subject, but I am sure that it will form part of the debate on the equal marriage Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance then not only to make his points, but to be given good answers.

Greg Mulholland: In January this year, the House voted unanimously for a review of the Government’s much-criticised decision to retain self-regulation for the big pub companies. Last week we learned from the British Beer and Pub Association that self-regulation has no role in tenant profitability, which was the big problem identified by the Select Committee. Now that we know that self-regulation cannot work, may we have that review, and may we have a statement from a Minister?

Andrew Lansley: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me when I say that I do not know the answer to his question. I will ask my colleagues whether they can respond to it, as I too will be interested in the reply.

William Bain: When will the Leader of the House schedule a full debate on the impact that the Government’s plans for real-terms cuts in tax credits will have on the living standards of up to 5.8 million people from next April? Such a debate would enable us to discuss why, according to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, 63% of the affected people in my constituency and 82% of those in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be strivers in low and middle-income jobs.

Andrew Lansley: Last Tuesday, if I recall correctly, the House had a full opportunity to debate the autumn statement and the economy generally, and full and clear answers were given. I think that when the hon. Gentleman takes into account not only the working-age benefits that are available to those who are in work, but the positive impact of tax changes on those people, he will recognise that the coalition Government are focusing on ensuring that work does indeed pay.

Glyn Davies: The Welsh Government’s proposals to pass a new law changing the organ donation rules from an opt-in system to an opt-out system are far advanced. That is, of course, a matter for the Welsh Government, but there is no evidence that the move will result in an increase in the number of donated organs. There may well be negative impacts on the donation system in England, however. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement before the Welsh law is passed on its possible impacts across the UK as a whole?

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to respond to my hon. Friend on that issue. I responded to the Welsh Government
	on behalf of the Government, and I made some points about the relationship between the organ donor register and its administration in England and in Wales. That is important, and should be taken into account.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on the merits of docking people’s pay if they do not carry out their duties? The Secretary of State for Education says he wants to do that to teachers, yet he and his Ministers have the worst record in Government on failing to answer parliamentary questions and, as we have heard today, refusing to meet Members who have genuine reasons to want to meet Ministers. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Secretary of State should take his own medicine by docking his own pay until he gets that right?

Andrew Lansley: I have seen the letter my right hon. Friend sent to schools, in which he made the absolutely fair point that, on the basis of ballots in which there was a very poor turnout, there is a minority of teachers who are prejudicing the interests of children in schools. My right hon. Friend was not saying that he was going to do anything; instead he was making it very clear that the Government support schools, as the employers of teachers, in making the right decisions on behalf of their children.

Oliver Colvile: Everyone knows somebody who has been affected by dementia. On Monday I attended a seminar at Stoke Damerel community college organised by Ian Sherriff, a well-known campaigner based at Plymouth university, which was also led by the well-known broadcaster Angela Rippon. May I add my support to calls for a debate in Backbench Business Committee time on dementia, as it is an important issue? Will my right hon. Friend also tell us what progress has been made with the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge?

Andrew Lansley: The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), is present and will have heard my hon. Friend’s request for a debate on dementia. I was with the Prime Minister when we launched the dementia challenge in the early part of the year. I will not give my hon. Friend a complete and comprehensive list of the many things that are happening, but the dementia-friendly community part of the challenge is resulting in the launch of a new dementia friends scheme, the delivery of awareness sessions on dementia to 1 million people, and some £54 million being made available to support dementia diagnosis in hospitals, because we know that there is under-diagnosis in this country, and we need to improve the situation. A substantial capital fund is also being created to support dementia-friendly health and care environments.

Bill Esterson: Instead of sacking HMRC staff, may we have a debate on how they could collect tax from wealthy individuals? Instead of cutting taxes to millionaires, the Government should try to collect their taxes.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman neglects the simple fact that our measures to ensure that people pay the proper sums in tax to the Government are raising about
	£7 billion a year more than similar measures under the last Labour Government. We are doing more, and we will do still more. The hon. Gentleman does not take any account of the fact that my ministerial colleagues at the Treasury have announced that front-line staff will be working precisely on tax evasion and tax avoidance, and the implementation of additional measures and a general anti-abuse rule in April will enable us to do still more.

Tessa Munt: The right hon. Gentleman will know of my interest in cancer and that I am generally supportive of the idea that doctors and clinicians should make decisions about local commissioning. Last night, however, I finished reading “Securing equity and excellence in commissioning specialised services”, a document produced by the NHS Commissioning Board. It is 227 pages long, and I was stunned to learn that there are 130 specialised commissioning services groups and a series of subgroups, as well as the NHS Commissioning Board, four regional directorates and 10 sub-regional directors inside 27 local area action teams. I am unclear how introducing more bureaucracy and new layers of staff—who are appointed, not elected—will lead to an increase in the provision of local services.

Mr Speaker: We are ever so grateful to the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who might wish further to pursue this matter by the well-known device of an Adjournment debate.

Andrew Lansley: The commissioning of specialised services through the NHS Commissioning Board is a direct replacement for the previous regional or national specialised commissioning. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the level of bureaucracy she describes is significantly less than there used to be under regional and national specialised commissioning. The total activity in the NHS Commissioning Board, compared with the responsibilities it has taken on, is reducing by about 30% or 40%; I am talking about the number of people employed and engaged in that kind of central commissioning activity. People with some of these specialised conditions want specialised commissioning on a national basis, because it gives them much greater assurance about the consistent application of the clinical guidelines.

Ben Wallace: This week, a young guardsman, Guardsman Bhullar of F Company, Scots Guards, took up his post guarding our monarch at Buckingham palace. Unlike his fellow guardsmen, he was wearing a turban rather than a bearskin—it has been a long time coming. He has a bright future and is a capable young man. Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on improving
	recruitment of ethnic minorities into our Army, because our armed forces are at their best when they look like the society they protect?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The House recently had an opportunity in time allocated by the Backbench Business Committee to discuss defence personnel. I do not recall whether the issue he raises came up, but I share his view, as I am sure the armed forces do. In particular, I think that they, like many across the House, will have been rather cheered by the new guardsman, recognising the tremendous and courageous contribution that Sikhs have historically made to the British Army over many years.

Natascha Engel: I want briefly to thank the Leader of the House for being flexible in allowing the Backbench Business Committee to allocate debates at the end of the day. I also ask him to help me to encourage Members to come to the Backbench Business Committee with proposals for not only very big debates on subjects such as autism, but debates that are more flexible and can be held quickly, such as yesterday’s debate on women bishops, and debates that are flexible on time and flexible on whether there is a vote at the end.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the House will be aware of the evidence from the Backbench Business Committee of the progress it is making in being able to accommodate requests. I have seen, by sitting with the Committee at its sessions, just how an increasing number of Members from right across the House are appreciate that and take advantage of it. The hon. Lady asks for flexible debates if the business of the House concludes early. We took that approach for the autism debate, which I thought was very successful and delivered precisely what the Committee was seeking.

John Baron: The Government are about to announce a key decision on whether one-year and five-year cancer survival rates will be included in the 2013-14 commissioning outcomes framework. Given the importance of this decision to cancer patients and the cancer community at large, may we have an appropriate statement in this House?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend and I have discussed this on many occasions. He will understand that one thing we have set out to do is hold the NHS to account, through the Commissioning Board, for the outcomes it achieves in the national outcomes—the NHS outcomes framework. The way in which the board then holds clinical commissioning groups to account in greater detail—I am pleased to say that the first 34 have now been authorised by the board—is a matter for it to decide under the NHS commissioning outcomes framework. It is for the board to make these announcements, rather than for Ministers to do so.

Personal Independence Payments

Esther McVey: The Government are committed to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential and play a full role in society. Crucial to that is the reform of disability living allowance, a lifeline for many but one that is simply not working in its current form. In the past 10 years, the number of people claiming rose by more than a third from around 2.4 million to 3.2 million and expenditure is now far in excess of initial estimated costs.
	This year the Department for Work and Pensions expected to spend more than £13 billion on DLA. As a percentage of GDP, we spend a fifth more than the EU average on disability benefits and expect to spend more in real terms in 2015-16 than we did in 2009-10. Today we are publishing the Government’s consultation responses on the draft assessment criteria and on the detailed design of the personal independence payment. Alongside that, I will be laying in draft before Parliament the main PIP regulations, which will set out the PIP entitlement conditions, assessment criteria and payment rates. We will also publish in draft what the transitional arrangements might look like. The main scheme regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure and I look forward to debating them in full early next year.
	Personal independence payments will be easier to understand and administer, financially sustainable and more objective. Throughout the whole development, we have consulted widely with disabled people and we have used their views to inform policy design and implementation plans. As a result of hearing those views, we have made several key changes to the final assessment criteria and I would like to thank the individuals and organisations who contributed.
	Starting with the rates, I am pleased to confirm the rates for PIP will be set at the same rates as DLA. The daily living enhanced rate of PIP will be the same as the higher rate care component of DLA, and the standard rate of the daily living component will be set at the middle-rate DLA care component. The mobility rates of PIP will be the same as the DLA rates. Furthermore, following the autumn statement, disability benefits will be protected within our uprating measures and PIP, like DLA and carer’s allowance, will continue to be uprated by inflation.
	The most important thing I want to announce today is that we have listened to and acted on the huge amount of consultation we have had with disabled people and disability groups. We have made specific key changes as a result of our engagement. They are outlined in full in our consultation responses and include broadening our approach to aids and appliances, assessing ability to read and taking account of specialist orientation aids that help mobility; mirroring the linking rules for DLA, which will help to ensure continuity for people with fluctuating conditions; and new plans for contacting young people when they reach the age of 16, or their appointees, to help a smooth transition to PIP.
	All the changes we have made address the genuine concerns of disabled people and the organisations representing them. Overall, their effect is to make PIP more transparent, objective, and fair.
	We also listened carefully to concerns about the speed of reassessments. To that end, we will now undertake a significantly slower reassessment timetable to ensure we get this right. It will be phased in, starting with a controlled start area in the north-west and parts of the north-east of England from April 2013. We will then take new claims nationally from June 2013. From October 2013, we will start reassessing people whose DLA award is due to end, people who report a change in their condition and young people who reach the age of 16. But now the peak period of reassessments will not start until October 2015. That means we can learn from the early introduction of PIP, testing our process and making sure the assessment is working correctly before we embark on higher volumes. We will then consider the findings of our first independent review, planned for 2014, and act on them. Importantly, unless people report a change in their condition, those with a lifetime or indefinite DLA award will not be reassessed until October 2015 at the earliest.
	We can now publish case load assumptions about the impact of PIP. Those figures clearly show that PIP will deliver its key objective of focusing support on those with the greatest needs. By October 2015, we will have reassessed 560,000 claimants. Of those, 160,000 will get a reduced award and 170,000 will get no award, but 230,000 will get the same or more support. Under the new criteria, almost a quarter of PIP recipients will get both of the highest rates, worth £134.40 each week, compared with only 16% on DLA.
	By reforming the system and ensuring that it is fit for the 21st century we can use the money we spend on disabled people more efficiently and effectively to help those most in need.

Anne McGuire: I thank the Minister for her statement and for the advance copy of it.
	Last Thursday we had the written announcement of the closure of Remploy factories, with more than 800 redundancies. This Thursday we have a statement that is intended, according to the Government’s own estimates, to remove a disability benefit from more than 500,000 disabled people. Let me make it clear that we are in favour of an assessment for DLA, but the assessment needs to be the right one.
	I shall deal first with a number of myths. There has indeed been an increase in the number of people claiming DLA. A significant number of those have protected DLA as they move into retirement. As the Minister knows, about 900,000 people currently receiving DLA fall into this category. However, the other factor that I thought she might have alluded to was that the lives of disabled people have changed dramatically since 1992, when the expectation for many of them was that they would move into residential care. Thankfully, that is not the current situation when most disabled people want to live, as far as possible, independent lives in their own community, and DLA has been crucial for many disabled people as they move into that environment of independence, choice and control over their own lives.
	I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement. In the short time available to us, I have not been able to scrutinise carefully the detail of the new assessment criteria, but I shall make some initial remarks. I welcome
	some of the changes that the Government have made, including the broadening of approach and the mirroring of the DLA linking rules. I welcome too the fact that the Government have recognised that the initial proposal on the speed of the assessment was unrealistic, and there will now be a significantly slower reassessment process. Nevertheless, we are still looking at June 2013 as the vesting date for new cases and we have not yet properly scrutinised the new criteria, so although I welcome the change in the speed of the assessment, I think there are still some issues about the new cases coming on in June 2013.
	We will apply stringent tests to the new PIP assessments. Let me ask the Minister some specific questions. Given that DLA support allows many people to travel to work, will the Government give a commitment that it will not be taken away from anyone who is in work? In other words, if they are currently on DLA and are currently in employment, will the Minister give a commitment that the financial integrity of disabled people who go to work will not be undermined?
	The Government are protecting under-16s and those over the age of 65, so how does the Minister’s claim that she is maintaining the overall budget square with that protection at each end of the age spectrum? If one looks at the demography, one clearly sees that there is a disproportionate impact on working-age disabled people. The Minister makes great play of the fact that the budget will remain the same, but I want to remind her of the comments made by her predecessor and other Members on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State, that greater support would be given to those with the most severe disability. I wonder how that marries with the fact that the rates for the new PIP will be exactly the same as the current rates for DLA. That seems to be a conundrum.
	The new criteria must not push people into social care or into the NHS. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Communities and Local Government, local government and the NHS to consider the impact as 500,000 people—over a longer period, admittedly—lose benefit?
	May I also ask the Minister what the impact on carers will be? I think that there was a little confusion in her answers about carers on Monday, so I want to give her another opportunity. Carers UK estimates that 10,000 people who currently receive carers allowance could lose it as a result of the changes. Has she made any estimate?
	I appreciate that this is a short statement so I will give a shortish response but I say once again to the Minister and to the Secretary of State that there is a whole raft of welfare reform changes that are impacting on the lives of disabled people. The Government have the facility and capacity, with hundreds of thousands of civil servants, so why do they not undertake a cumulative impact assessment of the effect of their changes on disabled people?

Esther McVey: I welcome the right hon. Lady’s words and her acknowledgment of the listening and consultation that we have done and the changes that we have made. I cannot give the assurances that she would like on PIP, as those were not the case for people of working age
	under DLA. What we can say is that everybody will be viewed as an individual when it comes to assessing their needs and that more people will get the higher awards—nearly 25% of those on PIP will be on the highest awards. As for carers, one thing we all agree on is that they do an incredible job. We will support them as best we can. I can also announce today that the links for carers that were in place under DLA will also be in place under PIP.
	The Opposition never conducted a cumulative impact assessment when they were in government, and for good reason. I understand that it would be impossible to measure the impact of such large reforms and changes, particularly as they will not be in place until 2017 and the case load is dynamic. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it would be nearly impossible to do that. As I have said, I am delighted that we have listened to the disability groups, taken on board what they have said and made the changes they asked for.

Nigel Mills: Does the Minister welcome, as I do, the fairer way that fluctuating conditions, mental health conditions and cognitive impairments are assessed under PIP, in contrast to DLA, which tended to focus solely on physical impairment?

Esther McVey: I thank my hon. Friend, who quite rightly states that PIP is intended to look at fluctuating conditions, take all the impacts into assessment and deliver for those people.

Anne Begg: I welcome the Government’s decision to delay the implementation of PIP and hope that they will continue to keep the timetable under review, because I suspect that it might not be as easy as the Minister implies it will be today. I advise her that she worries disabled people very much when she talks about the increase in the costs of DLA. Any increase in DLA, unlike for out-of-work benefits, is not necessarily a bad thing, because if more people are getting more DLA, more people are living independent lives and engaging in society in a way that they were not doing previously. Of course, any money spent on DLA or PIP is often money saved in other budgets, whether in the NHS or in social care. I ask the Minister to be very careful about the language she uses, because many disabled people are very worried about the implementation of PIP and what it will mean for their lives. Any words about saving money makes them think that they will be the victims of some kind of economic drive by the Government to ensure that they are saving on the budget for the very vulnerable. That money is spent very wisely on giving them an independent life.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Just before the Minister answers, I remind Members that we must have much shorter questions, because I want to get everybody in.

Esther McVey: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I will of course be very aware of the language I use, and I hear what she says most clearly. I am glad that she is pleased about the slower delivery of PIP and about the independent review that will take place in 2014 so that we can ensure that what is happening is correct and that we are delivering what is intended. We continue to spend over £13 billion, and we will be spending more in
	every year up to 2015-16 than was spent in 2009-10. I am fully aware of her concerns and we have taken them on board.

Greg Mulholland: I welcome the changes to the descriptors for blind and deaf people and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who has been working with the Department on this issue. These changes will enable blind and deaf people to access much more focused support for their conditions. Will the Minister outline that to the House?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right. We listened and consulted, and we have made the alterations required for blind and deaf people in relation to their ability to communicate, make journeys, and so on.

Glenda Jackson: The Minister will be aware that the majority of the recipients of DLA/PIP and their carers are dependent on the services provided by local authorities. However, because of the Government’s savage financial cuts for local authorities, those services are being eroded or removed, or in some instances charged for. As part of the impact assessment, will she examine in no small detail whether the services that enable disabled people to live independent lives will still be available or whether the cost of buying them will become prohibitive?

Esther McVey: We are working with local government to ensure that we are delivering on this. It is about what is best for disabled people and focused support for the billions of pounds that we are spending.

Philip Davies: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. May I tell her to stick to her guns on this subject and ignore the siren voices from those on the Labour Benches who seem to believe in a test, but one that nobody can fail, and want to advocate unlimited levels of welfare? Given that we have limited resources, most of my constituents will support the principle that the money should be directed at the people who need it instead of at the people who do not, so may I urge her to continue along that path?

Esther McVey: I thank my hon. Friend. This is a principled reform. It is about adding integrity and rigour to the system. It is about fairness and transparency, and helping those who need this support the most.

David Blunkett: I think that the comment by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was a disgrace.
	May I suggest to the Minister that we will not fully understand the impact of her announcement until we see the revised assessment criteria? Welcome as they are for blind and deaf people, will they have the continuing perversity of penalising blind people for having a go at undertaking journeys that they could undertake with DLA but could not undertake unless they had the support that PIP is intended to provide for them? In other words, will they avoid the perversity that was built into the previous assessment criteria and, above all, continue with the higher rate of the mobility component,
	which was unanimously agreed by this House just two and a half years ago and was threatened under the previous draft assessment regulations for PIP?

Esther McVey: I will continue to engage with the right hon. Gentleman; we met only yesterday. We inherited a confused system in which over 50% of people did not have medical support for their claims and 71% of people were left on indefinite awards. We want to engage with people and ensure that those who are most in need of support will get it. We do not want to penalise anybody who is trying their best. It is not about that; it is about offering support where it is most needed.

Steven Baker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will spend about £50 billion on services and benefits for disabled people, and will she set out how that compares and contrasts with similar countries?

Esther McVey: I can indeed confirm that my hon. Friend is right. We continue to spend £50 billion a year on support for disabled people, which is a fifth higher than the EU average. We are a world leader in how we deal with people with disabilities.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the statement and the delay in the movement of customers with indefinite awards for 21 months. That is a sign of listening to people’s concerns. Will the Minister reassure me that she and the Department will continue to work closely with the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland, given the concerns in that part of the United Kingdom about the impact of some of these reforms, particularly in deprived areas?

Esther McVey: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s words. I will indeed work closely with the social development agency and I will be going to Ireland in the not-too-distant future.

Duncan Hames: I thank the hon. Lady for keeping her predecessor’s promise to maintain the mobility component in the new PIP and not to take it away from local authority care home residents. She is listening and the Government are clearly learning from the experience of the work capability assessment. Who will she be listening to in the review of the early experience of her proposed new personal independence payments, in order to ensure that, when more people are transferred to PIP in 2015, we get the process right?

Esther McVey: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have been listening for the past 18 months. We have consulted all disability groups and disabled people and have engaged with absolutely everyone. We will continue to do that. There will be an independent review in 2014 and we will adjust, listen and do what we need to do to ensure that we deliver the correct benefit.

Natascha Engel: The House of Commons Library note on the personal independence payment has a large section on how seriously injured armed forces personnel and veterans will be affected. The Minister’s statement was silent on that. Will she outline how that group will be affected and,
	most importantly, will she define what is meant by “seriously injured”, because unless that is clearly defined they could simply be weasel words?

Esther McVey: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. That was not in my statement because it will come under a separate system under the Ministry of Defence. The support will be there and it will come through a different system.

Nick de Bois: I, like everyone in this House, have tremendous respect for the work done by carers. For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that the rules linking carers allowance to PIP will be exactly the same as those for the DLA?

Esther McVey: I can indeed confirm that.

Fiona Mactaggart: Given the Minister’s announcement that, although 230,000 will get the same or more support, 330,000 people will get no or less support, I assume that there will be a large number of appeals. At the moment, people who are appealing against rulings on the employment and support allowance in my constituency—80% of them are successful—are waiting for more than a year for their appeals to be heard. Is the Minister able to give any guarantee on how long the appeals against refusal of DLA will take? Will she set a maximum length of time and tell us that there will be enough staff to open the envelopes from people who make appeals, let alone administer them, which is not what is happening at present with ESA appeals?

Esther McVey: I recognise the points made by the hon. Lady. We will speed up the process. We have commitments from the Justice Department that it will have enough staff in place, and we will do this as best we can.

Peter Bone: I will follow on from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), because she raised a real issue. Every Member in this House will have had that problem in their constituency. Although the whole House welcomes what the Government are trying to do, there is a practical problem with appeals. Will the Minister at least look into that a little further?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is correct that that is a priority for us. However, I reiterate that this is a completely different system. PIP is a brand-new system and a brand-new benefit. It has new localised systems and it will be delivered locally. Therefore, it has been created in a much better format.

Nick Smith: What is the Minister’s estimate of the number of people on carer’s allowance who will lose out after this statement?

Esther McVey: As it stands, the same number of people will be on carer’s allowance, although they might be different people. As at the moment, people will be assessed and reassessed, and some people will move from having carer’s allowance to not having it, but the overall number will stay roughly the same.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Clearly, the Government have listened to the concerns of disabled people and made the appropriate changes. I particularly welcome the new timetable, which I hope will ensure that PIP is delivered correctly. Of course, an extended timetable also leads to anxiety and uncertainty among the recipients of the benefit. Will she assure me that everything possible will be done to ensure that individuals, through the various agencies and support groups, know exactly what their situation is?

Esther McVey: I can confirm that. What we are doing is all about a smooth transition and getting the implementation correct.

William Bain: When my right hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and I met members of the disability community in Scotland recently in my constituency, they expressed concerns that tens of thousands of disabled people in Scotland might lose their access to passported benefits and their ability to get to work under the new system. With disabled unemployment at a record high, would it not be wrong to create new barriers to disabled people keeping their jobs? Will the Minister guarantee that no disabled person who is currently in work will be worse off as a result of these reforms?

Esther McVey: As the hon. Gentleman will know, it has always been the case under DLA that when people are reassessed, some people stay on the same benefit, some people get more and some people get less. That will be exactly the same under PIP. The difference is that there was no systematic review under DLA, but there will be under PIP.

Michael Crockart: An answer that I received to a recent parliamentary question indicated that between October 2008 and May 2012, 59% of initial work capability assessments for employment and support allowance resulted in those being assessed being awarded no points at all. Will the Minister assure me and the many recipients of DLA in Edinburgh West that all possible efforts are being made to ensure that the design and delivery of the assessments for PIPs will ensure that more decisions are correct the first time around?

Esther McVey: Let me reiterate once again that this is a totally different system to ESA. It is a totally different benefit altogether. In fact, we inherited ESA from the previous Government. It was wrong in 2009 and we have put in place many steps to improve the system, including putting it through three reviews. I assure my hon. Friend that we have listened to the various disability groups and organisations, and that we will get this right.

Diana Johnson: We have put men on the moon, so I do not understand it when the Minister says that it is impossible to do a cumulative impact assessment. Surely that is not beyond the wit of the hundreds of civil servants sitting in her Department.

Esther McVey: The hon. Lady is right that we have put men on the moon. However, she will also know that her Government never did such an impact assessment, and for good reason. On such wide-ranging reforms, it is impossible to make an accurate assessment. That is particularly the case with these reforms because they will not be in place until 2017-18 and there is such a dynamic case load. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it would be near impossible.

Bill Esterson: I am glad the Minister was able to confirm that we have put a man on the moon.
	Let me return to the point about appeals, which is crucial. Surely if we get the assessment process right and it is fair, there will be no need for appeals and we will not see so many disabled people coming to my surgery—and those of Members across the House—who are worried about their financial futures.

Esther McVey: All sides of the House wanted reform. Everybody said that reform was right, but the difference is that this Government are making that reform to ensure we have a benefit that is fair and correct, right for the 21st century, and that has rigour put into it.

Lindsay Hoyle: Last, but certainly not least, Julie Hilling.

Julie Hilling: I, too, am really shocked that the Minister is not going to carry out an impact assessment, and I wonder whether she will answer the question this time. Will blind people get the equivalent of the higher-rate mobility component of DLA?

Esther McVey: Every individual will be assessed on their individual needs. We have taken significant soundings and listened to all the various groups. Each person will get the benefit that they require.

BILL PRESENTED

Succession to the Crown Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.  57 )
	The Deputy Prime Minister, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary William Hague, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Moore, Danny Alexander and Miss Chloe Smith, presented a Bill to make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes.
	Bill  read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 17 December 2012, and to be printed (Bill 110) with explanatory notes (Bill 110-EN).

Committee on Standards (Lay Members)

[Relevant document: the Report from the House of Commons Commission, HC 709]

John Thurso: I beg to move,
	That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Mr Peter Jinman, Mr Walter Rader and Ms Sharon Darcy be appointed lay members of the Committee on Standards.
	In December 2012, the House endorsed a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should include at least two lay members who have never been parliamentarians. The proposal was supported by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, whose then Chair, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), suggested it to the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	The Procedure Committee was asked to consider how that recommendation might be best implemented. It recommended that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be divided into two, and that the lay members should sit only on the Committee responsible for standards. If the House accepts the nominations today, the two new Committees will come into existence on the first sitting day in January, following on from Kathryn Hudson taking up her appointment as the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on 1 January.
	The lay members will not be co-opted as full voting members of the Select Committee. There was some doubt over whether a committee partly composed of non-members with equal voting rights would in law be a parliamentary Committee and thus entitled to the normal protections of parliamentary privilege. Draft legislation to permit the House to give lay members of the Committee on Standards the power to vote is included in the Government’s Green Paper on Parliamentary Privilege, which has been referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses and is due to report in April next year.
	The lay members will participate fully in evidence taking and the consideration of draft reports, although they will not be able formally to move amendments or take part in any votes. There will be two specific protections for their position. The first is that the Committee cannot conduct any business unless at least one lay member is present. The second is the requirement that any written opinion of a lay member present at the relevant meeting on a report agreed by the Committee must be published as part of that report.
	The process of recruiting the lay members fell to the House of Commons Commission. The posts were advertised on the parliamentary website through the outreach service, with a search by recruitment consultants and through Twitter. There were 86 applicants for the post, reduced through sifts and interviews to a short list of 12 for interview. The interviews were undertaken in September 2012 by a board that included the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, John Horam, who is now a member of the Electoral Commission, an external assessor and senior officials.
	That board put forward six candidates for final interview in October 2012 by three members of the Commission: the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Aberdeen
	North (Mr Doran) and me. On the basis of our assessment, the Commission agreed to make the following three nominations to the House this afternoon: Sharon Darcy, who is a member of the national board of Consumer Focus and a board member of the National Employment Savings Trust; Peter Jinman OBE, who is a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; and Walter Rader OBE, who is independent chair of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland appeals panel.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a clear statement. However, will he tell the House what sort of hours those people will be expected to work and what their remuneration will be?

John Thurso: My hon. Friend anticipates my next two points. Let me deal with them in order, and if he is not satisfied, he can have another go.
	Brief CVs of the candidates are set out in the paper that is available in the Vote Office. The Commission believes that, together, the three candidates represent a combination of experience and qualities that should increase public confidence in the robustness and independence of the House’s disciplinary process. The appointments will initially run until the dissolution of Parliament at the next general election, but they can be extended for up to two years in the new Parliament. Once appointed, a lay member could be dismissed only following a resolution of the House.
	The Committee’s work load is variable and it is not yet known what exactly it will be. The lay members will therefore be remunerated on a daily rate for each day worked. That rate is to be £300 per day plus any modest travelling expenses.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman mentions the work load. Surely that depends on the behaviour of the House rather than on what the Committee wishes to do?

John Thurso: Absolutely. That is the point that I was trying to make, albeit not very succinctly. The work load is variable, consequent on our behaviour. We therefore hope that the lay members will be very modestly rewarded. However, we will have to see.
	The Commission has recognised that the role will be challenging and has asked officials to provide a comprehensive induction programme to familiarise the lay members with the culture, roles and key players across Parliament, as well as the procedures and working practices of the Committee on Standards.
	I commend the nominees to the House.

Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the terms in which he moved the motion. I am looking forward to the contributions to what I think will be a short and uncontroversial debate from fellow members of the House of the Commons Commission, including the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron)
	and the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I look forward to what will probably be variations on a similar theme.
	On behalf of the Opposition and, I believe, of all Members who intend to speak, I support the principle of the changes. Appointing lay members to the Committee on Standards was a suggestion of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2009 in the aftermath of the expenses issues and scandals in the previous Parliament. The recommendation was aimed at further improving public confidence in the House’s ability to regulate itself, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said.
	The subsequent Third Special Report on Standards and Privileges accepted the proposals and, on 12 March, the now Patronage Secretary and I, as shadow Leader of the House, took part in the debate that effected them by creating Standing Orders Nos. 148A and 149A, and modifying Standing Order No. 149. Since that time, the process of appointment has been thorough, as is usual with such procedures, and I have no doubt that the candidates for inclusion as lay members of the Committee, which, once we have made the decision, will split into two, are more than worthy of the roles. I am sure that, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, Sharon Darcy, Peter Jinman OBE and Walter Rader OBE will bring a breadth of knowledge and experience that will be of benefit to the Committee.
	The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, of which I am a member, also contains lay members, and their contribution is of great value. I look forward to having my suspicions confirmed that the work of the newly appointed members of the Committee on Standards will also be of great value.
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will want to say something about how he sees the new arrangement working when the Committee splits at the beginning of next year, as he will be at the forefront of that work. I look forward to hearing the comments of other hon. Members too. The Opposition endorse the principle of the change, and look forward to the development of the Committee in its new form.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has set out the rules that will apply, and a few technicalities have been added by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) from the Opposition Front Bench.
	I rise briefly to support the motion more as a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee than of the House of Commons Commission. As motions 4 and 5 on the Order Paper indicate, subject to the motion being agreed we will have a new standards Committee, a separate privileges Committee, and at least two new members starting in the new year. This is interesting timing, as the new Commissioner and the three new lay members will be commencing in their roles. There will be an interesting learning curve for the lay members and for the Commissioner.
	As hon. Members are aware, the Committee will meet in private to consider reports from the Commissioner following her investigation of complaints that are felt to
	be appropriate to the Committee. I hope that having lay members will bring some reassurance to those outside our peculiar bubble, and that it might even calm the odd strident reporter from the odd strident newspaper. It will be interesting for the new lay members to learn what life as an MP entails and the various and considerable pressures under which MPs work.
	The rules on standards have been reviewed in the light of the Committee’s recent experiences. We have had more such experiences than we should. The report has been published and will be considered by the House in due course. In some areas the rules have been tightened, but efforts have been made to clarify the rules so that hon. Members understand them more easily. Complicated rules and an ignorance of them have been a source of minor apparent transgressions. The new lay members will need to appreciate the combination of the rules and the pressures faced by hon. Members. The Commissioner receives a steady trickle of complaints. Fortunately, most relate to matters that are not relevant, and, sadly, there are sometimes personal or political attacks. Now that a spate of cases from the expenses scandal have been through the mill, I hope that the work of the Committee on Standards will become minuscule.
	Compared with the scandals of most other countries, I believe that with rare exceptions, the UK and the House do not have a real problem. Having our robust system certainly helps us to keep it that way and the rules will tighten that even more. I expect and sincerely hope that this will continue, and be supplemented by our new lay members.

Kevin Barron: I am delighted to add my support to the motion and have no hesitation in commending the three names before the House—Sharon Darcy, Peter Jinman and Walter Rader.
	The procedure to appoint lay members was modelled on that for the independent external members of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. As the Procedure Committee recommended, I took part in the appointment process to ensure access to the experience of the Speaker’s Committee, although the final decision was a matter for the House of Commons Commission. We had a strong field and were able to put forward several names for the Commission to choose from, and as Members will see from the Commission’s report, the three candidates bring a range of valuable experience. I am confident in their sound judgment.
	I welcome the fact that we are at last appointing lay members. Indeed, the previous Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, now the Government Chief Whip, commended the idea to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It is one of the manifestations of his incomparable good judgement that his recent return to the Back Benches must have been one of the shortest on record; the Front Bench simply could not do without him. It is a pleasure to implement a recommendation in the House with such a history of Committee support.
	I am particularly pleased that we are appointing three lay members. As we all know, parliamentary business can be unpredictable and in the past the Committee on Standards and Privileges has had to meet at short notice. The Committee on Standards will be able to
	meet only if a lay member is present, and appointing three lay members from the outset will reduce the danger of Committee business being disrupted. I have been a lay member myself. As colleagues will know, it was a role I played on the General Medical Council for several years. It is all too easy for any expert group to look inward and to lose a sense of perspective, which is why many professional disciplinary bodies, not just the GMC, contain lay members.
	Even when professional judgements are perfect, there is a case for an independent element to ensure that all angles are considered and, most importantly, to provide as much reassurance as possible that regulation is conducted in the public interest. It will never be possible to convince everyone, but if an independent element in regulation works for doctors and solicitors, it should work for us as well. I hope that the lay members will not operate as outsiders riding shotgun to ensure the Committee behaves. I would like them to be an integral part of the Committee, and every one of those whose name is before the House has had experience of this sort of collective working. With the help of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Committee on Standards and Privileges has done its utmost to act rigorously, fairly and impartially. I hope that the participation of lay members will make it easier for the new Committee on Standards to demonstrate that it operates in such a way.
	As I have said in previous debates, I regret that the lay members will not have a vote at this stage, although there is at least a mechanism that allows them to place their views formally on the record if they feel it necessary to do so. Although I look forward to legislation allowing lay members voting rights, we must remember that the current Committee on Standards and Privileges does not normally decide matters on division. In my time on the Committee, I can recollect only one vote, but even then the Committee went on to agree a unanimous report. If the new Committee follows that pattern, which I hope it will, any difference between lay members and others will be minimal, if not non-existent. In agreeing the motion, the House will take a step that should improve public perception of our disciplinary processes. I am confident that it will do more than that and will produce a better, fairer system. I am happy to support the motion.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for moving the motion and for how he explained the process of appointment, the merits of the candidates and their future responsibilities. It was very helpful and clear.
	I also pay tribute to the work of the Procedure Committee in shaping the proposals that have brought us to this point. I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for their contributions. I say to my hon. Friend that, although some might think this will modify the behaviour of the press, I am not expecting it to achieve that. We can be confident, however, that it will assist us not only in setting and enforcing high standards of conduct in this place, but in ensuring that we are seen to do so. It is the public we want to focus on. We want them to understand and appreciate that.
	What we are doing today is further to the House agreeing on 2 December 2010 to the principle of lay members on the Committee on Standards. The House invited the Procedure Committee to make proposals to implement that. Those proposals, with minor modifications, were given effect by the House on 12 March 2012, when Standing Order Nos. 148A and 149A were made and Standing Order No. 149 was amended. I am sure that Members do not need to be reminded of the detailed background; suffice it to say that having lay members on the Committee on Standards was a recommendation in the 2009 report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It therefore represents part of a wider package of rebuilding trust following the expenses scandal. In practice as well as in perception, robust independent scrutiny and regulation have come to the determination and administration of our expenses, pay and pensions. They will now also play an important part in our internal disciplinary processes.
	With that in mind, the Government, and I am sure the whole House, support the appointment of lay members to the Committee on Standards. Their participation in our standards processes will provide a most valuable addition to the work of the Committee on Standards and, if necessary, a challenge to its work—I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley for illustrating how that might be possible in practice. That will increase public confidence in the work of the Committee.
	As someone who participated in the selection process, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross described, may I also say that I can recommend the candidates to the House? I was impressed by the evident time and trouble they had taken in preparing for and participating in the selection process. I believe the House will find in them the right balance of experience, judgment and integrity. The
	candidates were also clear about their need and wish to undertake necessary training and induction in preparation for their role. I know that the Committee and House service will want to ensure that that is available.
	Members will also be aware from the Order Paper that there are two motions to be considered later today that seek to implement the previous decisions of the House—of 2 December 2011 and 12 March 2012—to split the Standards and Privileges Committee into two Committees: one on standards, the other on privileges. Should the House agree to the motion before us now and the further two motions on the Order Paper, then according to the Standing Order changes agreed on 12 March this year and with effect from 7 January 2013, as described by the shadow Leader of the House, the Standards and Privileges Committee will divide and lay members will play the role on the Committee on Standards that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross set out earlier.
	On behalf of the Government and as Leader of the House, I support the motion, and I look forward to welcoming the lay members to their new and important role in the new year.
	Question put and agreed to.

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning we had the First Reading of the Succession to the Crown Bill. It is my understanding that this is a constitutional Bill, so I was wondering whether there was any way of asking the Leader of the House to confirm whether it would be taken on the Floor of the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, that is not a point of order, although I am sure that the Leader of the House has picked up his question.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Laura Sandys: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of live animal exports and animal welfare.
	It is a great pleasure to open this debate, which was requested by a cross-party group of Members. I want first to thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us a debate on this extremely important issue. It is an extraordinary thing: Britain can have extreme pride when it comes to animal welfare—we have a strong sense of tradition. This is the country that passed the first piece of legislation on animal welfare—I believe it was in 1635—when we prohibited the pulling of wool off sheep and forbade the attaching of ploughs to horses’ tails.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Can the hon. Lady advise us whether that was in any way gold-plating of EU regulations?

Laura Sandys: I am sure the horses and sheep would have had something to say if it had been. That legislation was not only about animal welfare, but about more effective agriculture—I am concerned about how effective a plough drawn from the end of a horse’s tail would be. Even Cromwell decreed through parish rights that
	“No Man shall exercise any Tyranny or Cruelty towards any brute Creature which are usually kept for man’s use.”
	We should therefore be proud of our traditions and standards.
	It was for that reason that when I became a Member of Parliament, I did not feel that this issue would concern me particularly. I felt we were leading the way—setting the standard. That was most certainly the case until live animal exports started from my local port in Ramsgate. As I started to see the trade first hand, I was extremely surprised that we in this country had so little power or control over the well-being of the animals bred here by UK farmers and exported to the continent. The trade out of Ramsgate shows, for example, how many licensing regimes regulate the industry. The ship that takes the animals across from Ramsgate to France is licensed in Latvia, but was designed as a roll-on, roll-off vessel for river crossings in Russia, not for crossing the channel. The transport licence holder has a licence in Holland. The drivers of the lorries do not need licences at all, but they do need to hold certificates of competence, which can be granted in any country, including those with different animal welfare priorities. They do not have the same tradition as us or the same high standards.

Jim Fitzpatrick: If I could take the hon. Lady back to the vessel that carries the animals across the channel, does she know why it is used instead of the normal channel ferries on the Dover-Calais routes, which carry lots of goods, travel faster and are in better condition?

Laura Sandys: The trade used to be out of Dover, but there was an issue with berths and some of the animal transport boats. Indeed, there was an issue before I entered this House whereby the ferry operators banned
	the trade on their ferries. As a result, a specific transportation mechanism was needed, but we are talking about a ship that is not equipped to go across the channel, despite our regulators saying that it is. It is equipped for fresh-water river crossings, not channel crossings in the middle of winter. We have already had a major crisis, when animals were taken halfway across the channel but had to return because the boat could not manage the seas.
	Let me return to the drivers, the third element in all this. They do not need licences; they need certificates of competence. Certificates of competence can be granted in any country, with any set of standards, and would not necessarily meet the standards of competency in this country, which must reflect not only an ability to deal with animal welfare in a positive sense, but an ability to deal with animals in a crisis. I have seen major problems on my portside when people without the relevant competency have tried to deal with crises and emergencies.
	Of course we have to meet EU standards, but others do not have to meet UK standards. When I went to see the commissioner in Brussels, he told me that he was keen for the rest of Europe to raise its welfare standards to match ours, but at the moment we are witnessing a race to the bottom. As a result, lowest common denominator standards are being applied to all the different licensing regimes in the different parts of the live animal export supply chain. Our farmers in this country are not lax about animal welfare. They take huge pride in maintaining standards, but once they start trading in the licensing regime, the EU standards apply. I have been contacted by many farmers who have been appalled by what is going on in my port.

Kevan Jones: Is this not another example of the UK gold-plating regulations while the rest of Europe ignores them? Is the hon. Lady aware of moves in any other European countries to ensure that at least the minimum standards in the regulations are enforced?

Laura Sandys: That is an important point. The commissioner told me that one of his key priorities was to enforce the existing EU regulations across all of Europe, because there are quite a lot of inconsistencies. Despite my dislike of gold-plated EU regulations, I believe that, in this instance, it is the gold-plating that enables us proudly to maintain our tradition as a country that stands up for animal welfare across the board. However, we need to encourage the Minister of State to be much more forthright towards countries that adopt different standards.

Kevan Jones: Is the hon. Lady aware of any countries that are not complying with the minimum standards set out in the current European regulations?

Laura Sandys: I do not have precise knowledge of which countries are not complying with the regulations. Animal welfare can also be a cultural issue, with different countries having different cultural responses to the regulations. I hope other Members will agree that our Minister needs to be absolutely clear with countries that are pursuing the lowest possible level of animal welfare provision or that are not meeting the UK’s standards, which should represent the gold standard.

Lyn Brown: On the question of port inspections, I was concerned to note that only 45 out of almost 40,000 animals were deemed unfit to continue their journey when inspected at the port. Does the hon. Lady agree that there might be a lack of decent inspections on our side of the channel as well?

Laura Sandys: There are issues about the EU, and there are issues about the competent authority. The competent authority in this instance is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it needs to ensure that we have a gold standard for inspections, enforcement and licensing.

Robert Buckland: On the point about enforcement, my hon. Friend might be aware that article 26.6 of European Council regulation No. 1/ 2005 gives member states the power temporarily to prohibit the use of transportation in the case of
	“repeated or serious infringements of this Regulation…even if the transporter or the means of transport is authorised by another Member State”.
	Would she therefore acknowledge that a power exists within the regulation to take unilateral action?

Laura Sandys: I welcome my hon. Friend’s great knowledge of EU regulations. I will come to that point in a moment. It is crucial that the existing powers are aggressively exercised in this trade, and the first challenge that I shall throw to the Minister, which I am sure he will welcome, is that he should use his good offices and his political will to ensure that we raise standards right across Europe.
	The second priority for me and my local residents is that we seek to ban live animal exports. The fact that there are few benefits to the trade is illustrated by the significant drop in the number of live animals being traded out. The problem is that our farmers are not being properly paid for the food they produce. My understanding, from talking to representatives of the National Farmers Union, is that this is a marginal trade undertaken by some farmers who can get a better price for their animals on the continent. It is crucial that farmers are properly paid for their work and for their investment in animals. We need to ensure that we are building the right levels of value into the food supply chain, and that we do not undercut certain stages of our food production.

Nigel Dodds: Some farmers in Northern Ireland say that they are at the mercy of the prices that local slaughterhouses are offering. Does the hon. Lady acknowledge the real concern that that could drive prices down even further for farmers?

Laura Sandys: I know that the trade in Ireland is much bigger than it is on the mainland—or certainly than it is in England. I am interested in this issue in a broader sense, right along the food supply chain, and I believe that we have undervalued food across the board. We need to ensure that farmers are getting fair prices, but this trade is not the answer to the fundamental problem of the market not delivering good value to farmers. We need to address the problem comprehensively, and I know that it is the will of my constituents—and of many people around the country—that we should be
	seeking to impose a ban on live animal exports. There is no reason why farmers should not be able to get good value for their animals by exporting them after slaughter, rather than on the hoof.

Henry Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I, too, would support a ban on live animal exports. Would she acknowledge that the journey of animals being exported for slaughter often starts many miles and many hours from the port from which they exit this country, and that it can continue for many kilometres and many hours before they arrive at their destination on the continent, where they are to be slaughtered?

Laura Sandys: I totally agree. The transportations that go out of Ramsgate can come not only from the north of England but from Ireland, and we can speculate that they are ending up in southern France, Spain and sometimes Greece. I still do not understand how that business model can deliver value, given the time taken to transport the animals from one end of Europe to the other, along with the cost of transportation, licensing costs and lairage. I do not understand the fundamentals of the business of transporting animals that far.

Duncan Hames: I am glad that my hon. Friend is focusing on the welfare of animals. Does she agree that that is more important than the question of whether they cross a border? Many animals being taken for slaughter within mainland UK experience longer journeys than those being exported from, say, Northern Ireland to somewhere not very far away in the Republic of Ireland.

Laura Sandys: Absolutely. Animals can be transported across Europe, and the journey need not involve crossing water, but our priority must be the standard of that transportation. As I said, the licensing regime has many layers, which creates a lot of confusion and inhibits us from imposing our own animal welfare values on operators within our borders.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I confess that I have not finished my research for the debate, so, given that we have reached it earlier than I anticipated, the hon. Lady might be able to help me out with a figure. I believe that the number of animals exported is less than 5% of the total number slaughtered in the UK, which gives us a measure of the size of this trade. Does she know what percentage of live export animals are sold abroad for breeding purposes rather than for slaughter and meat?

Laura Sandys: As I understand it, there are two quite distinct trades. The animals exported through my port are definitely for slaughter and not for breeding. I am happy to be corrected, but I believe that animals for breeding will be transported in quite different conditions from those transported for slaughter. That shows the difference between looking at the issue as a long-term economic asset as compared with a temporary price differential to be achieved in a different territory.

Kerry McCarthy: According to Compassion in World Farming, about 4.5 million sheep were slaughtered in the UK in 2011, but only about 72,000 exported—0.5% of the total. That chimes with
	what the hon. Lady was saying—that it is difficult to understand why there is an economic imperative for sending those 0.5% of sheep abroad for slaughter rather than slaughtering them here.

Laura Sandys: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s knowledge in this field, which is extensive.
	I asked the Commission in Brussels whether it had done any form of business analysis to show why this business is economic. I still feel that fair prices for farmers that take animal welfare really seriously are absolutely crucial. I do not necessarily understand the business model behind the exporting business.

Nicholas Dakin: The hon. Lady is setting out the case very clearly. She makes the point that animal welfare is central and highlights the UK’s excellent record. It is integral to the case she is making for minimising animal transportation wherever possible. If there has to be transportation in the UK or beyond, there should be the highest welfare standards. That is an issue for the Minister to address through the competence of DEFRA as much as anything else.

Laura Sandys: I agree with hon. Gentleman. A point about gold-plating was raised earlier. It applies to some of the legislation on abattoirs, and relates to transportation distances becoming longer within the UK. There are issues with domestic animal welfare that we have not necessarily promoted.
	Let me return to some of the key themes, which I hope other Members will take further. I shall come on to the third element about which I feel strongly as I represent the interests of my constituents. The first two themes are EU competences and EU legislation, where the Minister represents and reflects our concerns, but the third is about the UK as a competent authority. I appreciate the restrictions on DEFRA’s ability to act, but I sometimes feel that it can be a touch meek and mild, not using all the entry points it might have.
	I welcome the Minister’s statement yesterday on tightening some of the regulations and enforcement, but I would like to see a lot more commitment in three key areas. The first relates to a “fit and proper operator”. We must clearly understand what infringements an operator must commit to stop being fit and proper. I have no understanding of that, but I am greatly concerned about the transporter that has received six warning notices from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We have had major crises in the port side, with 47 animals being slaughtered. A ram that broke its horn had to be shot in the truck and was then pulled out. We do not have penning arrangements, yet we still have an operator that can receive licences. I would be interested to know whether DEFRA has contacted the Dutch authorities to express concern about the method used and the experiences that we have had to endure in Ramsgate.
	I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) about the very strong powers. If we look at paragraph 6 of article 26 of the EU Council regulations, we find that there is an opportunity to
	“temporarily prohibit the transporter or means of transport concerned with transporting animals on its territory”.
	I hope that the Minister will be increasingly robust about that issue.
	Two other smaller issues are crucial, the first of which is the cost of licensing. I was fascinated and staggered to find that there was no cost to a transportation licence. Someone applies and, if they have a certificate of competence, there are no related costs. I have run two small businesses and all I can say is that I had to pay every time health and safety turned up at my door to give me a certificate to be a fit and proper organisation. There are lots of costs in running an organisation. There is then the added cost to the taxpayer, which in this instance is for animal welfare inspections of the operations that the Minister is running through DEFRA. Why has that fully-loaded cost not been put on to the operator? Ultimately, as small businesses, we all pay for the regulatory regime to which we are subject.

Andrew Bingham: Does my hon. Friend feel that if the cost were put on the operator, it might discourage some of the horrific tales we have heard about, and perhaps discourage the more cavalier and cowboy operators from involvement in this trade?

Laura Sandys: It is crucial that we accept and tolerate only the very best transporters in the sector. I feel strongly about this trade generally, but we must ensure that operators take their responsibilities extremely seriously and that this trade is not being subsidised by all of us as taxpayers. In my constituency, where there is much more involvement, it is my local taxpayers who are paying for a lot of this, and I would like to see them refunded for the impact it is having on their bills.

Tessa Munt: My understanding is that there is a cost to licensing. I shall use the example of George Neville’s firm, which is in the Minister’s constituency, abutting mine. It has a fleet of 20 vehicles—this is executive transport, with water, fans and hydraulic decks that lift up and down so the stress levels on the animals are hugely reduced—but it pays £4,000 for the licences on those 20 vehicles.

Laura Sandys: That sounds like the Rolls-Royce of transportation, and I would be very pleased if the animals coming through Ramsgate were in that sort of condition. My understanding is, however, that people can apply for a transportation licence, although I do not know whether this is a different sort of licence from the one to which the hon. Lady has just referred, and that they can get it for free.

Kevan Jones: Is the hon. Lady aware of anyone who has been refused a licence, and how many licences have been withdrawn because of welfare concerns?

Laura Sandys: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are now 25 minutes into this debate, when 10 to 15 minutes was expected. The hon. Lady has taken many interventions, but I am sure that she must be coming to a conclusion as she wants to allow other Members to enter the debate.

Laura Sandys: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to answer the questions put to me.
	I believe that we need to look clearly at what is going on in Europe and to raise standards in Europe, ensuring that we address some of the licensing regimes across Europe. Ultimately, I urge the Minister to use all the powers he has—they seem explicit and give him a lot of scope—to ensure that if we must have this transportation mechanism and live animal exports, we have the best in business.

Kerry McCarthy: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on her efforts to arrange a debate in the Chamber on this subject, and on her speech. She is obviously doing a very good job in representing the wishes of her constituents. I am very disappointed that the High Court overturned the moratorium that Thanet district council had imposed on animal exports until it could be sure that animal welfare standards were being met and that RSPCA inspectors would be able to check the conditions of the animals, but I understand that the council intends to appeal, and I wish it every success.
	My starting point is the same as that of the hon. Member for South Thanet. I think that live animal exports are cruel and unnecessary, and I should like them to be banned. I agree with Compassion in World Farming, which has said:
	“Live exports have no place in modern British farming. We must end the trade once and for all.”

Henry Smith: Today we are discussing live animal exports, but there are live animal imports as well, and some of those animals are primates. In 2011, up to 1,500 primates were imported to this country for the purpose of experimentation, from countries as far away as Mauritius. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should also consider the welfare of animals that are imported to this country, whether for food or for experimentation?

Kerry McCarthy: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman speaking out on animal welfare issues, as I know he has done on a number of other occasions. I agree that those imports are cause for serious concern. The trade in great apes has already been banned, and I think that we should go further and consider banning the trade in all primates.
	Although this does not appear in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I think it is well known that I have been a vegetarian for a long time. My 21st anniversary as a vegan is approaching: that was a new year’s resolution in 1992. Of course I would rather people did not eat animals at all, but given that they will be doing so for at least the foreseeable future, I think that UK animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to the farms where they were reared, and—I understand that the Government agree with this—that there should be an export market for meat rather than for live animals. At present, however, we are herding live, terrified animals into cramped conditions and transporting them overseas, often on journeys lasting several days.
	According to Compassion in World Farming, more than 90,000 cattle and sheep were exported during the 18 months between January 2011 and June 2012, mostly
	through Ramsgate. The sheep tend to be exported for slaughter in continental abattoirs, while the calves are sent abroad to be fattened for veal. The long journeys are stressful for both. The journeys to Spain, for example, can take more than 90 hours, and the calves are often only two or three weeks old when they are exported. Dr Weeks of Bristol university has concluded that
	“scientific evidence indicates that young calves are not well adapted to cope with transport…transport should be avoided where possible, particularly as morbidity and mortality following transport can be high.”
	Dr Weeks says:
	“Their immune systems are not fully developed”,
	which makes them more susceptible to disease. They are also poorly adapted to cope with the temperature changes that can happen during the journeys, and with many other aspects of their transport.
	Concern has also been expressed about the conditions of the animals when they arrive in the countries to which they are exported. Once they reach the continent, many calves are reared for veal in conditions so poor that they would be banned in Britain on welfare grounds. They are kept on concrete or slatted floors without any straw or other bedding. Such barren systems are illegal in the UK, as our legislation requires calves to be provided with appropriate bedding. We should ask ourselves why we are sending animals abroad to be kept in conditions that we would not allow in the UK.
	The same applies to sheep, many of which are exported from Britain to be slaughtered in France. A few years ago, an investigation of 25 French slaughterhouses by a French animal welfare organisation revealed many breaches of EU legislation that was designed to protect the welfare of animals at slaughter. British sheep are also exported to the Netherlands. A report published earlier this year by a European Union organisation identified a number of serious animal welfare problems in Dutch slaughterhouses. Once the animals leave Britain, we are powerless to ensure that they are treated properly. The National Farmers Union claims that they are treated well before and during transportation, but the recent deaths of sheep that were being transported through Ramsgate demonstrate that that is not always the case.
	I consider it highly unsatisfactory that live exports cannot be legally prohibited. In general, I accept that as members of the European Union we sign up to collective laws and that that is part and parcel of the deal, but yesterday I took part in a protest outside Fortnum and Mason about its sales of foie gras. The situation in the United Kingdom is fairly ridiculous: along with 17 other countries, we ban the production of foie gras, but we are not allowed to ban imports from France. PETA—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—has carried out undercover filming which reveals terrible conditions, including the grotesque force-feeding of the geese that produce foie gras, but we are not allowed to ban it because of EU free-trade laws, and we are obviously in a similar position when it comes to live exports. I accept, at least for the moment, that we cannot prohibit the trade, but we need to consider how existing regulations can be properly enforced and the highest possible animal welfare standards adhered to.
	The last Labour Government tried to strengthen EU regulations. In November 2011, the European Commission published a review of the animal transport regulation— Regulation 1/2005—which stated that severe welfare
	problems still existed. It called for new ways of improving the implementation of existing rules—including satellite tracking systems, more frequent inspections, and better reporting on compliance by member states—rather than proposing any changes to legislation. In June this year, however, the EU Health Commissioner, who has responsibility for this issue, said that current legislation could not adequately protect animals on long journeys, and that the EC would propose a review of EU legislation including a proposal for reduced transport times. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether, rather than merely ensuring that the existing regulations are “enforced strictly and rigorously”, as they have said is their intention, the Government would be prepared to support a review of the current legislation as well.
	Many MPs and Members of the European Parliament have backed the campaign by Compassion in World Farming to set a maximum limit of eight hours for the transport of animals, and more than 1.1 million EU citizens have signed a petition requesting a time limit. The campaign calls on the EU to amend its legislation so that live animals can never be transported for more than eight hours, and yesterday the European Parliament reaffirmed its support for it.

Roger Williams: We all respect the hon. Lady’s views on these matters, but I fear that an eight-hour limit would affect traditional UK farming practices. For instance, animals that are bred and reared on remote Scottish islands need to be brought to the mainland, where grazing and arable crops are better, in order to be “finished” for slaughter. The limit would cause problems for them, and for traditional agriculture practices on those islands.

Kerry McCarthy: I was coming to that. The motion in the European Parliament was passed by 555 votes to 56, which constitutes pretty overwhelming support for a reduction in journey times. The motion allowed some geographical and science-based exemptions in the case of certain species, which could perhaps be factored in provided animal welfare standards were met, but I think it has been accepted that the introduction of an eight-hour limit would bring most UK live exports to an end.
	It is true that journey time limits in themselves cannot guarantee animal welfare. The hon. Member for South Thanet mentioned the vehicles on which animals are transported, and the need for inspections and the good handling of animals. However, Regulation 1/2005 recognises that
	“Long journeys are likely to have more detrimental effects on the welfare of animals than short ones”.
	Let me finally put a few questions to the Minister. The final decision rests with the Council of the European Union, which comprises the national Ministers of the 27 member states. Has the Minister any plans to discuss with his ministerial counterparts whether to review or amend Regulation 1/2005? What discussions has he had with his ministerial counterparts about an eight-hour limit, in the light of the overwhelming vote by the European Parliament and the fact that more than 1 million EU citizens signed the petition? What are the Government doing to ensure that animals are slaughtered as close as possible to the farms where they are reared, rather than encouraging the transport of live animals?
	In June 2012, I wrote to the then Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I felt at the time that Government lacked the will to deal with the issue. However, I have great faith in the new farming Minister, who, I believe, will be far more constructive and willing to make progress, and I look forward to hearing from him.

Glyn Davies: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, as it is directly relevant to my life experience. I am one of the livestock farmers that other Members have been talking about for many years. I have been indirectly involved in the live export trade. In the early part of my career I was a cattle farmer, and nearly all the British male breeding stock has changed since then. We are now using European breeds—Charolais, Limousin and Simmental. The quality of British beef has been completely transformed, therefore, simply through the relationship between this country and other countries. That process is still going on elsewhere.
	The main part of my enterprise was producing sheep, however. Exporting to France was particularly common. Most of my stock were sold at the local livestock market, where they were bought by a dealer, who would put together a lorry-load. The standards of those who transported animals were very high. The lorries at the Welshpool livestock market were of a very high standard, and many people were watching the quality of the loading, which was very good.
	Some 20 or 30 years ago I would sell my small hill lambs towards the end of the season. The tradition then was to take them to the small market in Llanfair Caereinion from where they were taken to Spain. They were kept in Spain for several weeks, and the feeding regime was changed so the quality of the product was changed. I discussed the whole process with the local transporter, M. E. Edwards and Sons—one of the finest transporters in Britain, with very high standards, who is still operating today. The point was made to me that transporting those lambs served to underpin the lamb trade in rural Wales, and that they were far better treated than lambs supplied from elsewhere to the Spanish market would have been. If the lambs had not been transported from Wales, in what seemed to me to be the highest possible standards, they would have come from other parts of Europe, where standards had not been checked.
	I have a lot of sympathy with many of the points made in the debate so far. I am in favour of gold-plating the standards of animal transport. It is a lot more important to ensure there are high transportation standards than to worry about distances. I am not in favour of banning live exports, and it is not entirely logical to concern ourselves with distance. We must make certain that all transport is of the very highest standard, and we should demand that when journeys cross borders, too.
	Most of the store cattle at my farm in central Wales were sold to central Scotland, where they were fattened. That journey probably took longer than some of the time scales we are talking about. I cannot see the point of such time limits, and neither do I envisage that they will ever become law.
	Let me turn to the question of unintended consequences. When I was in my teens, I was involved in these issues. Many people will remember the demonstrations at Dover.
	They were a matter of some concern, as they were hugely damaging to the farming industry. The ferry companies felt under public relations pressure, and eventually decided no longer to carry the animals. They were then transferred to Ramsgate, Ipswich or other ports where the standards were far lower. The boats were far less safe and less comfortable for the animals, and the travel time is far greater, and the facilities at the docks are not as good. The unintended consequence of having created that huge rumpus at Dover was a lowering of the standards of animal welfare.
	Those who transport livestock from Britain must meet the gold-plated standards we in Britain demand. If we stop live exports, European companies will still buy lambs to satisfy demand in their markets, but they will buy them from somewhere else. The result of a ban on animal transportation will be that the sum total of animal cruelty is increased, and no one wants that. We must be aware of the possible unintended consequences of the proposals we make.
	I welcome the Minister’s recent statement on these matters. We want to maximise the proportion of slaughtering that takes place in the United Kingdom, rather than abroad. That will support the British economy and mean there are more jobs in the United Kingdom. European markets need to be educated, however. The French like to have lamb that has been in France for a day or two so they can describe it to customers as “Welsh lamb.” The Spanish certainly used to want to have the animals in Spain for quite a long period so they could have different feeding regimes and the resulting meat was different and more attractive to the Spanish market. We need to change the nature of the markets in Europe, therefore.
	I am also pleased about the Minister’s focus on zero tolerance. If a transporter is found guilty several times, their licence must be taken away as they are not fit for the job. This is a highly sensitive job that is important to the farming industry, and the British people have a natural instinct to care about the animals we farm. It is unacceptable for anybody who has a record of poor behaviour to have a licence to transport animals. They must be kicked out of the industry all together.
	The Minister referred to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. Wherever there is the slightest doubt about standards—as there is in Ramsgate at present—the agency must check up on the situation very closely. There must immediately be a Government presence at the port in question and action must be taken if necessary.

Lyn Brown: rose—

Glyn Davies: I was going to finish there, but as the hon. Lady wants to intervene, I shall pretend I have another half-sentence to say.

Lyn Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I listened intently to the points he made. I did not agree with some of them, but as his speech came across as a confessional, I felt I should not intervene until now. Does he agree that what happened at Ramsgate—some 40 sheep died—is unlikely to be an isolated incident? We need a proper review into the transportation of
	animals, and an inspection regime must be put in place. Does he agree, and will he call for a proper review by the Government, not a narrow internal one?

Glyn Davies: I am terribly sorry if my speech came across as any sort of confessional. Throughout my involvement in the business, I have been extremely proud of it. Indeed, if I lived my life again, I would probably do exactly the same thing. I see absolutely no reason to apologise for anything. May I also say how much I appreciated the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) about improved payment being a good thing for farmers in this country?

Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman may be leading us to a more compassionate future if he decides to finish the sheep that he has in Wales; he could give them a Spanish diet for the last few months and export them as carcasses. Would that not be both profitable and more humane?

Glyn Davies: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is being completely serious, but I rather agree with the principle of what he is saying, and this goes back to what I said about education. Whatever we can do to move to a system of slaughtering in Britain for the European market, I wholly applaud, but I do not think we can do that now; it would be like taking step 10 without taking steps one to nine first, and it would not be sensible at the moment. We should continue with the live export trade—we probably have no choice but to do so—as it is the right thing to do, but we should do it absolutely properly.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who demonstrated his long experience and expertise in these matters. We are grateful for that contribution, as it helps us to get a better understanding of this subject. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this debate, along with the hon. Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions raised. I was one of his predecessors as Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I recall that when I was appointed I was identified in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph as a “townie veggie” and a lacto-pescatarian”. I also had some fun poked at me by Horse and Hound, although being attacked by Horse and Hound is a bit of a badge of a honour for Labour Members, so it did not do me any harm whatsoever. This issue came across my desk, and I was reassured about the regulations, the monitoring and the enforcement. Some three years later, the Minister is being asked these questions again.
	The National Farmers Union was much more generous in its welcome of my appointment. It said, “We don’t care where he comes from or what he eats. We will judge him on what he does for farming.” I built up a very constructive relationship with the NFU in my time as Minister of State at DEFRA, and I have high regard for the farming community. That arises, first, from the quality of product they produce and the very high
	animal welfare standards to which they produce it. Our standards are much higher than those of most of the rest of the European Union, as can be seen in the lead we have set on chickens, eggs, poultry and the rest. Sometimes that has been at the expense of the farmers, because they pay for it out of the profit they make at the end of the year. We also charge farmers with responsibility for looking after the countryside and our environment. The farming community is a big part of the United Kingdom, economically, industrially and environmentally, so I have nothing but regard for the NFU and its members.
	The hon. Member for South Thanet raised two key issues: the general issue of live animal exports; and the secondary issue of what happened at Ramsgate in September. Those issues are distinctly different and need to be addressed differently. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) will cover the Labour party position on live exports in detail, but I can say that we have called for a full review into the trade; a look at the treaty of Rome, because measures to ban any live trade would fall foul of that; and better facilities to be available at or near the port of Ramsgate. Hon. Members have already drawn attention to European regulation 1/2005 and the minimal animal welfare provisions, so I do not need to go into that, although the Minister may wish to refer to it when he responds.
	My hon. Friend has previously asked the Minister
	“if he will carry out a full review into the animal welfare considerations of the live export trade”.
	He was told:
	“The Government has no plans to carry out such a review.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 713W.]
	It is a measure of the power of Backbench Business Committee debates that the Minister made the statement yesterday that he has taken action on this issue and the export of live animals through the port of Ramsgate will face tougher welfare checks. One can only assume that that is a result of his having examined the questions, the correspondence and the fact that this debate was taking place.
	The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency has been asked to look into the three additional measures that the Minister mentioned: the AHVLA implementing its own contingency plans in the event of an emergency with the transport; improved procedures to ensure that an AHVLA vet is always within an hour of the port to assist inspectors in the event of an emergency or welfare concern; and working with the operator of the transport vessel to develop new contingency measures. Those very important measures have been raised by the Minister and they may offer some reassurance. However, for the House and for the hon. Member for South Thanet clearly they only reinforce the questions she asked in her introductory remarks, such as why it has taken so long for these things to be identified. She also asked about the pre-existing arrangements, the monitoring and enforcement that was going on.
	I am grateful to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for its briefing on the subject. Its policy position is clear. It wants: an end to the long-distance transport of live animals, with a maximum journey of eight hours; amendments to existing legislation; and full costs being paid by the hauliers rather than by the taxpayer. That brings us to the question raised by the
	hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and others about the suitability of Ramsgate as opposed to Dover. We are advised by the RSPCA that the
	“trade in live animals changed to Ramsgate from Dover in…2010 as the loading bay in the port of Dover had been damaged.”
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that commercial reasons may have been behind this, because of the lobbying by animal welfare groups against the general trade in live animal exports.

Simon Hart: I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about an eight-hour transporting limit, but that would preclude a number of people transporting their animals from west Wales and from mid-Wales to markets in the UK. How would he overcome that problem?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The point was dealt with earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the explanation she gave about exemptions for particular species in regions and areas covers that. I was not setting out my position; I was putting on the record the RSPCA’s position, out of gratitude for the briefing and information they supplied me, so that it is in the public domain for anyone listening, watching or reading afterwards. They will be able to weigh that up in the mix and decide whether it is something that they want to support.
	On Ramsgate versus Dover, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire suggested that the decision may well have been a commercial one taken by the ferry operators because they did not want to inflame or outrage public opinion and were aware of the power and influence of the animal welfare lobby against live exports. The perverse outcome is that instead of the animals being transported on vessels that are quicker and better equipped to carry cargo, and having better animal welfare facilities available much nearer the port, the animals have to go to the port of Ramsgate in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Thanet. It is clearly not as suitable and it does not have the facilities. Clearly, the vessel she described was not built for this particular trade. The perversity of the outcome leaves a bad taste; it is a success for those lobbyists who chased the trade from Dover, but the animals have to go through the additional journey time, the additional discomfort and so on. I am not sure that that counts as animal welfare. It certainly does not address animal welfare concerns as I would understand them. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister has anything to say about that.
	The second issue is the incident in September. Yesterday, I had a meeting with the NFU and I have also received a briefing from NFU, for which I am grateful. I know that the NFU has written to the Minister, asking a number of questions. Who made the decision to unload? Who decided to kill the animals and which ones to kill? What were the reasons for the kill? Why were the animals unloaded on to an uneven surface? Why were there open drain pits and animals drowning, not just being shot? Were they shot in the right part of the head? What were the skill levels of those involved, who were clearly moved by compassion and tried to do the right thing? When we see the photographs of the blood, the animals and the discomfort, we see that this clearly was not done in a way that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire
	would recognise; it was not done in the professional way that we would all expect. In that instance, there are serious questions to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. I know that there is an inquiry going on and that he might very well be constrained in how much he can share with us, but a commitment to ensure that that is in the public domain as quickly as possible so that we can return to the subject will, I am sure, be welcome.
	I hope, too, that the Minister will make comparisons between the trade from the south-west and Wales to Ireland and the trade to the continent. I do not hear the noises from Wales—I do not hear about protests at Holyhead or people complaining about the live trade there, so I assume that that trade works in the way that the Department and industry want it to work in contrast with the way it is operating at Ramsgate.

Andrew Stunell: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying and he is setting out his case very clearly. Does he agree with many of my constituents that the important thing is to establish what happened and ensure that it never happens again?

Jim Fitzpatrick: That is a very good question to conclude the points I am making to the Minister. As I said in my opening remarks, there are two distinct questions. One is about live exports as a trade. Although I do not eat meat and poultry—my cards are on the table—that is a matter of choice and if the trade is legal, which it is, and if people are making a living out of it and there are jobs and economies at stake, I would go along with it. What happened at Ramsgate is a whole different ballgame, and the concerns about Ramsgate’s suitability as a port were well expressed by the hon. Member for South Thanet, in whose constituency the port is situated. In that instance, those questions are very valid.
	As I have said, trade is legal and we found out from the exchange between the hon. Member for South Thanet and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East that we are talking about 0.5% of UK trade in sheep. Regulations are supposed to cover the facilities, the transportation, the haulage companies and the principle of animal welfare. The questions are therefore about the relevance of the rights, their validity, their monitoring and their enforcement. There are many questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, although we recognise that he will not be able to answer all of them. I look forward to even better reassurances than those that I was able to give when I was sitting in his place.

Roger Williams: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who shared with us his experience when he held the post of Minister responsible for agriculture in the previous Labour Government.
	I want to declare an interest that appears in the register, as I am a livestock farmer producing both sheep and cattle. I have no doubt that in the past many of the animals might have been subject to live export, but at present almost 100% of everything that is produced on my farm, when it leaves my farm, is sent by me to a
	slaughterhouse in Merthyr Tydfil, about 20 miles away, which has an excellent reputation for animal welfare, hygiene, cleanliness and all we would want to see in a slaughterhouse. Many of us feel much more comfortable now we know that our animals are going to a slaughterhouse like that, which will dispatch them in the best way possible.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on introducing this debate, which is very useful. I anticipated that it might be a little better attended, but I congratulate everyone who has taken part on doing so in a constructive and measured way. Anyone who is interested in animal welfare and wants to see it improved will find this debate a valuable asset.
	I think that it has been agreed that at the moment live export is a legal operation. Indeed, it would be illegal to ban live exports of animals, as in the 1990s the European Court twice ruled that the UK could not live exports. When the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse was a Minister—I am glad he is in the Chamber today—he was asked what progress the Labour Government had made in reducing live animal exports, and he replied:
	“The export of live animals is a lawful trade and to restrict it would be contrary to free trade rules.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 716.]
	That is where we are at the moment.
	The hon. Member for South Thanet has taken the right line. Rather than calling for something that we cannot do immediately or perhaps ever, let us put all our effort into making things better. Let us have zero tolerance for poor animal welfare. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on that point. I also welcome the Minister’s announcement that the AHVLA will check every consignment of live animals scheduled to pass through the port.

John Leech: Does my hon. Friend agree that zero tolerance should include stricter penalties for abuses of the welfare system?

Roger Williams: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. People who are found to have repeatedly committed criminal offences in respect of animal welfare should be banned from carrying out such activities at all. That would not only be a very good encouragement for people to adopt better animal welfare conditions, but would mean that the worst offenders were no longer involved in the trade.
	On doing research for this debate, I found various numbers for how many sheep and cattle are being exported live from this country. Out of the 15 million sheep produced in this country for sale, almost 99.5% are slaughtered in this country, and of those, 30% are exported in carcass form or as meat products not only to the continent but more widely, including to the middle east and far east. That is an important trade for the agricultural industry.
	The NFU gave me some figures. They were not as helpful as they could have been, because the period covered was not given, but it seems that about 43,000 live sheep are exported from this country to the three main destinations to which sheep are exported. Those 43,000 sheep can be set against roughly 5 million that are slaughtered in this country and exported as carcasses. The vast majority of live exports in the UK go to the
	Republic of Ireland, most of which will simply be crossing a land border. People might like to distinguish between sheep travelling across land and sheep travelling across sea, and the point has been made about the suitability of the vessel employed in such circumstances. When we address animal welfare issues, we must address the quality not only of lorry transport but of ship transport.
	I have already made the point that in setting time limits for journeys, we must take into account traditional agricultural practices. For instance, on the Scottish islands, on islands in the rest of Europe and in some remote areas, animals need to travel for winter grazing, improved grazing or better arable crops in order to be prepared for slaughter.

Angus MacNeil: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about animal movements. Even in the case of transporting animals over the Irish sea, it is not whether they go by ferry but the length of time and conditions that are paramount. It makes sense for the producer and the consumer to have a better sheep or a better beast arriving in better order.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and his experience of representing his constituency is important in these matters.
	The hon. Member for South Thanet asked what type of business plan encourages this type of live export. I cannot believe that anybody who loads 100 live sheep on to a lorry and at the end of the journey unloads 95 live sheep and five dead ones can make money out of that in the long term.

Tessa Munt: I have spoken already about executive transport for cattle and sheep, with which I am familiar. If a company that pays £90,000 for an Italian-made trailer and £70,000 for the tractor unit to draw it can carry cattle, sheep and other animals, can operate at such costs and can meet the Freedom Foods certificate standards, it is clearly possible to do that and still make money.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The discussion this afternoon shows that although some hon. Members may wish to ban live exports altogether, most would want it carried out in the way that is most conducive to good animal welfare. My hon. Friend makes the important point that much of the transport that is now provided for animals is of a very high standard. Water and ventilation are provided, there are rest periods and journeys are of limited duration.

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, and I would join in the many compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the improving standards of transport and conditions on the vehicles—lorries and boats. My hon. Friend raised the crucial point about the ports. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that enforcement at the ports is vital if we are to improve animal welfare standards?

Roger Williams: Indeed—not only enforcement at the ports, but the right sort of facilities at the ports to deal, for example, with emergencies or with animals that cannot be loaded at a specific time because weather
	conditions preclude sailing. Good conditions at the port are almost as important as the enforcement that the hon. Gentleman highlights.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Roger Williams: I will give way to my good friend from Newport.

Paul Flynn: Always a friend of the farmers on this subject.
	We heard about the very distressing case of the lorry that was on its way to Ramsgate. It was stopped because of a suspected traffic offence. It seems extraordinary that regulations do not allow many more lorries to be stopped to ensure that the dreadful conditions in which those animals were being carried are not repeated in other vehicles.

Roger Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It may be that that lorry was stopped for a suspected traffic offence, but as I understand it the animals would have to have been inspected at the time of loading. There is some lack of clarity about events at Ramsgate. It was suggested by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is no longer in her place, that 40 sheep died there. In fact, 40 sheep were put down there, which is slightly different. I am clear that enforcement and inspection should be of a high order, and the Minister announced yesterday that that would be the case. Every lorry that is being prepared to board a vessel will have to be inspected.

Angus MacNeil: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time; he is very kind. Perhaps I should have declared in my previous intervention that as a lamb producer myself, I have an interest in the matter. As a lamb producer I understand that we want to get our beasts to market—mine make a sea crossing—as clean as possible. Among crofters in the west highlands, even a couple of pounds on the price—if we do a pound or two better than our neighbours—means that we have bragging rights for the rest of the year. There are inbuilt reasons for having very good animal welfare, so that the animals are clean and have the best possible appearance and no distress when they get to the auction mart on the mainland.

Roger Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Those of us who have been involved in animal production and would like to think that we have a high regard for animal welfare cannot believe that people in the business could be involved in damaging the animals or reducing their appearance. As he knows, the price of an animal depends not only on its health and fitness, but on its appearance. Cramming animals into very small spaces does nothing to improve their marketability.
	In conclusion, I shall set out the Liberal Democrat point of view on this matter. I am sure many hon. Members would agree with this broad approach. Although we accept that live export is a legal trade and it would be difficult in the short term or even the medium term to ban it, Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about animal welfare and the export of live animals. We
	would prefer animals to be slaughtered as close as possible to where they are reared. The transportation of meat and other animal by-products is always preferable to the movement of live animals. Unfortunately, the movement of live animals for trade is a perfectly lawful process. While it remains a legal trade under European laws we must allow it to continue. However, we should make sure that our animal welfare laws are followed to the letter so that no animal is made to suffer during transport.
	We welcome the Minister’s announcement that every consignment of live animals scheduled to pass through the port will be inspected. We support a zero tolerance approach. If there is any evidence of slipping welfare standards, the coalition Government should not hesitate to take action. The EU has strengthened the law on live animal exports by placing strict responsibilities not just on drivers, but on others involved in the entire transport process. The authorisation and training of drivers, and the vehicles used for the transportation of live animals, should all be subject to rigorous requirements.
	This debate has been very beneficial and I am sure the whole House would support improvements in animal welfare wherever the Government can find the necessary regulation to achieve them.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have caught your eye. It has been an excellent consensual debate so far. I have the privilege of serving on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I also serve on the Defence Committee and I hope that the Backbench Business Committee will in future consider the timings of some of these debates. I suspect that this debate may not go the whole five hours. There might have been an opportunity for a second debate later, although I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is still to share his huge wisdom with us, which may take some time.
	As a Member representing a Scottish constituency, I am cognisant of the issues facing the farming industry. It has been a measured debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing it and on being present to open it and then to hear the very good exchanges that have taken place. I received a number of e-mails from constituents asking me to attend and I was happy to do so. I shall tackle a couple of issues that particularly affect Scotland. Also, I am conscious of the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore for a Select Committee inquiry. I shall return to that.
	On the subject of transportation, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) mentioned the importance of the export of live animals to British farmers, particularly those in the sheep industry. I understand that around 400,000 live animals a year are exported, more than 90% of which are sheep.
	We all recognise the challenges facing the sheep industry across the United Kingdom, particularly in upland areas. Were we to ban live exports, not only would we fall foul of European law—article 34, I think, but I
	might be wrong—but there would be serious consequences for our farmers. However, that is not to say that we should not require the highest standards of animal welfare in the process, and I welcome the constructive comments made by the hon. Member for South Thanet and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse on the way forward.
	It would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government’s thoughts on some things. For example, does he agree that using regular services on large, cross-channel freight ferries from Dover might be more advantageous than the less than ideal conditions in which they are sailing from Ramsgate, as the hon. Lady said? Not only are journey times significantly shorter, but there are more frequent sailing opportunities for ferries. Also, there are probably—I hope she takes no offence—better and more appropriate port facilities for live animals at Dover than there are at Ramsgate.

Caroline Lucas: Opting for an all-out ban right now would be against EU law, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister did everything he could to advocate such a ban at European level, because we are often told that things are against EU law, but when member states really start to push they can get breakthroughs?

Thomas Docherty: No, I do not agree that we should have an outright ban. If the hon. Lady had been here since the start of the debate, she would have heard the reasons why. We have a fragile farming industry and banning the trade would be ludicrous. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is sitting beside her, will probably wish to point out to her that banning the use of ferries would effectively end sheep farming on the Western Isles, the Isle of Arran and other islands around the United Kingdom. I am sorry that she has not had the opportunity to go across the country and listen to farmers, because otherwise she would understand the fragile state of their industry and the damage an outright ban would do. If she had been here for the whole debate, rather than coming in at the last minute, she would have had an opportunity to hear the eloquent speeches made by Members on both sides of the House.
	Another consideration is that there are larger, faster and more stable boats sailing each day from Dover. As the hon. Member for South Thanet set out clearly, we are dealing with a very dubious character when it comes to the gentleman running the trade out of Ramsgate. It is obvious that animal welfare is not his priority and that he is not interested in local public opinion or in what DEFRA has to say. For him, it is all about the bottom buck. It would help if the Minister set out what powers DEFRA has to ensure that a fast buck is not the most important consideration for exporters and that animal welfare is crucial.
	Over the past few years we have seen that having an export market for livestock helps even those farmers who sell within the UK because it takes some of the surplus supply overseas. About six weeks ago the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and I had a very good debate in Westminster Hall on the dairy industry. We pointed out, along with another Select Committee colleague, that what farmers need is a fair price for their produce, whether it is milk, mutton,
	lamb or beef. Doing all we can to encourage exports will not only bring additional revenue into the UK and help the balance of payments—I do not intend to give the House a lecture on economics—but help to secure a fairer price for farmers and a vibrant farming industry. Perhaps the Minister will also set out what DEFRA intends to do to encourage exports to other parts of the European Union, because Labour Members, with perhaps one exception, recognise that a vibrant farming industry is a good thing for the British economy.

Caroline Lucas: I am sorry, but the condescension coming from the hon. Gentleman is hard to bear. He is implying that the UK farming industry is all of one view on this, but I know UK farmers who are absolutely against the export of live animals precisely because of the cruelty involved. To suppose that those of us who are, for strong ethical reasons, against the trade are somehow also against UK farming is a gross simplification of the issue.

Thomas Docherty: Obviously I speak regularly with the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and I know that colleagues speak regularly with the National Farmers Union in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. If she can point to which of those four organisations, which are the voice of farmers, shares her rather extreme views, I would be delighted to meet it.

Angus MacNeil: As I said, I strongly disagree with the implicit assumption that cruelty is involved. I produce lambs between March and April and sell them in August, so I know that they have to be cared for for those four months and that the last thing a farmer wants to see is them going away in any kind of cruel circumstances, not least because that affects their value, but also because they have raised them from birth. To send them away in any sort of cruel circumstances would, I think, turn the stomachs of many crofters and farmers.

Thomas Docherty: It is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on every issue, so the fact that we are on the same side of the argument today, as are Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues and, indeed, Members on my own Front Bench—always a pleasant treat—shows clearly that the House supports a vibrant but, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said, ethical and humane export policy. That is the nub of the debate. It is not about the principle of exports; it is about how we treat the animals. That is why we need more rigorous enforcement. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how he thinks DEFRA, with its existing powers, could better ensure that that happens.
	The House will be aware that yesterday the European Parliament debated a motion, similar to those we often have in this place, to approve a report by its agriculture committee. It contained much to be welcomed on the issue of animal transportation. It recognised, as we have done today—those of us who have been here throughout the debate—that we should seek to have higher standards and that it is a question of how we ensure compliance across all member states.
	However, there is one issue that I and the National Farmers Union of Scotland disagree with, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and
	Radnorshire: an obsession with the eight-hour rule. There is no credible scientific advice demonstrating that exceeding the arbitrary limit of eight hours leads to a drop in animal welfare. As the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and for Brecon and Radnorshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and other Members from elsewhere in the great parts of the Celtic kingdoms would point out, getting to abattoirs even within the United Kingdom can take more than eight hours. I am thinking, in particular, of the pig industry and the difficult circumstances Vion is currently going through. For example, if Vion is sold and its Scottish abattoir is closed, the nearest abattoir for pig farmers from north-east Scotland will probably be in Yorkshire. If we were allowed to head down the path of the eight-hour rule, it is difficult to see how farmers in Morayshire and across north-east Scotland, never mind those in the highlands, could survive. I would like the Minister to confirm that the Government have no plans to introduce, and do not support, an eight-hour rule.
	I hope that the Minister, who is no doubt busy taking notes in his head, will also tell us what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations. It is vital that DEFRA work with Mr Lochhead in the Scottish Parliament, our Labour colleague in Wales and our Democratic Unionist party colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly so that we are all working together on this issue, on which, overwhelmingly, all the grown-up, sensible parties are united in wanting a vibrant farming industry.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that the entire membership of the RSPCA are not sensible people? I find his—what is the word?—patronage towards people who do not agree with him to be absolutely unacceptable.

Thomas Docherty: I think that the word the hon. Lady wants is “patronising” rather than “patronage”, but I accept that she was grasping for it and missed. Obviously, the RSPCA is entitled to its view, but it has not—dare I say it?—looked at the bigger picture. It is surely the job of parliamentarians to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We have to follow the evidence, and the reality is that there is no evidence to say that an eight-hour rule would lead to a rise in animal welfare standards. In fact, it would only damage the farming industries in Scotland, parts of Wales, and Northern Ireland.
	Let me move on to what more we could do. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has written to the Select Committee about this. One issue that we have not talked about is what more supermarkets can do. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on whether we could encourage them to introduce labelling that says that they have introduced their own voluntary codes about humane standards and clearly states what they are. We all know of the great success that the British egg industry has had with the introduction of the red lion symbol on packets of eggs. There are also fair trade labels for overseas goods. In the debate on the dairy industry a few weeks ago, an eloquent point was made by an hon. Member who said that we rightly talk about fair trade for overseas farmers but do not talk enough about fair trade for British farmers. I want to extend that principle. We should have
	clearer labelling from the supermarkets and the food producers that says that all their products have been produced in a humane way that complies with the highest possible standards of animal welfare.
	On the request for a Select Committee inquiry, I am not in a position to divulge the thinking of colleagues, but the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I have listened sympathetically to the arguments made today. We have been talking about the need for an inquiry into how EU regulations as a whole are implemented. I hope that we will have an opportunity in the near future to carry out such an inquiry, which might be a useful tool. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore responds to the debate he could set out in a little more detail what he thinks the terms of reference might be.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will indeed do that. One of my reasons for calling for a wide-ranging review is not only to focus on the animal welfare considerations but to give the industry, which is a good industry, an opportunity to show where it is implementing good practice and to highlight the areas that might need improvement and amendment. It is very much an opportunity to salvage the reputation of the industry and to put things right where that is needed.

Thomas Docherty: That is a good point. I would like three major players in the industry to give evidence—the farmers themselves, those involved in transportation, and the supermarkets. Perhaps my hon. Friend can expand on that. I hope that the animal welfare charities will also come to the table and add their voice, because that is important. That will enable us to take counsel from all interested parties.
	This has been an excellent debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse and the hon. Member for South Thanet on securing it. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and the Minister.

Neil Parish: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for introducing it. It is an opportune moment for us to debate live exports and, in particular, the methods used.
	If we look at the number of animals that travel in and out of this country, we see that 85% of the trade is between Ireland and ourselves, so the idea that we are going to ban the live export of animals is unfeasible—it would be impossible. Furthermore, many of those animals may be intended for further fattening or breeding. It is therefore absolutely necessary for the farming community to be able to trade properly, not only with Ireland but with the rest of Europe, because, for the time being at least, we work within a single European market and expect to be able to trade as such.
	Let me pinpoint what happened in Ramsgate, where 40 or 50 sheep were unloaded on to the dockside with no way of containing them. Those of us who have reared sheep know very well that, certainly without a
	dog or any sort of enclosure, the idea of allowing those sheep off the lorry was, to be candid, madness, because all it would do is cause a huge problem, and that is what ensued.
	We need to have a system whereby proper investigations can be performed. The Minister has said that animals need to be inspected properly when they go on to the lorry, and that is fundamental. Then, if there is a problem when they get to the port, wherever it is, there needs to be some form of lairage not too far away so that if there is an emergency the animals can be unloaded and looked after properly. It is possible to take animals on journeys and look after them well. Racehorses are taken all over the world, but of course they go first class, whereas not all the animals we are discussing are going first class; I very much accept that.
	Another aspect is the type of lorries that are used, which must be the proper type for the species they are transporting. When I was in the European Parliament, I did a lot of work on the transportation of horses, which requires specialist vehicles. We need the right vehicles and the right number of animals on the vehicles so that they are not overcrowded. At times of the year when it is particularly hot and the animals are reasonably crowded on the lorry, there must be proper ventilation, and sometimes refrigeration, to be able to get cold air into it. As I said, the trade is essential, but it has to observe the very best rules. We need to get the situation regarding the lorries right and get the inspections correct, and we need to be sure that, if there is an emergency, when the lorries get to the port there are the means to unload the animals carefully and to handle them properly. If we do all that, then much of what went on at Ramsgate can be put right.
	Perhaps the industry needs to think about concentrating exports in particular places so that they can provide the best facilities. I think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) used the word “ramshackle”. That is an interesting word, but I do not necessarily disagree with him. We cannot allow this sort of thing to happen, and I know that the Minister is very conscious of that. The public out there are supportive of agriculture and farming, but they are also very keen on animal welfare, and it is therefore in our interest to make sure that animals are treated very well. From an economic point of view, we want them to travel well and to be unloaded at the other end in good condition, or what is the purpose of transporting them in the first place?
	I think we are getting carried away about distances. The driving distance from Land’s End to John O’Groat’s is, I think, a little more than 900 miles—it is nearly, but not quite, 1,000 miles. The distance between Dover and Calais is 22 miles, so as long as an export system does not take animals on long journeys, it is possible to cross either the English channel or the Irish sea without too many problems. Again, it has to be ensured that the ferries are fit for purpose and that everything works, because I think that the public demand it. The industry and farmers are conscious of that and know that it is part of the trade.
	We have to put the percentage of trade in perspective. Live export, especially that for slaughter, amounts to probably only 1% or 2% of the overall market, so huge numbers of sheep and cattle are being slaughtered in this country and then exported as meat. Let us be
	absolutely clear that that is our preferred position. We must have the ability to take those animals to be traded as meat or to be further fattened.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend and I met the English Beef and Lamb Executive this morning, and I pay tribute to it for its wonderful work in promoting English lamb, particularly Agneau St George, and to Hybu Cig Cymru for promoting Welsh lamb.

Thomas Docherty: What about Scottish lamb?

Roger Williams: There must be similar organisations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These organisations do wonderful work in promoting the sale of meat and in getting it to be accepted and appreciated in other countries.

Neil Parish: I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about EBLEX, which is doing a good job in promoting our lamb and beef abroad. On this occasion, I will be magnanimous and say that Welsh lamb, Scottish lamb, English lamb and west country lamb are all wonderful. I will not tell Members which one I think is the best, but they will probably have a fairly good idea.

Bob Stewart: The west country is in England!

Neil Parish: Parts of the west country are in England, but I will not enter into that debate this afternoon.
	It is essential for us to deal with the issue in a grown-up manner. I thank the Minister for the steps he has already taken and look forward to hearing his winding-up speech. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has said, perhaps there is now a case for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to look at the issue, in order to see exactly how the trade is being conducted, to make sure that the rules are in place and to double-check whether the lorries, other vehicles and all those involved are operating it correctly.
	If sheep or cattle that are not lame or ill, which is exactly as they should be, are loaded on to and transported in the right type of lorry, they should get to their destination in France, Ireland or wherever it be—that is a Somerset expression—in good condition, and that is what the industry wants. I reinforce the point that it is not in the interests of the farming community or those carrying out the trade to take an animal across in poor condition.

Thomas Docherty: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be appropriate for our Committee to look at the conditions, such as handling facilities, when the animals arrive at their destination? Given the growth of super-abattoirs as the industry consolidates, we need to look carefully at that part of the journey.

Neil Parish: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—we could look at all of that. One of the issues that I have spent a lot of time on, although it is probably not on the agenda for this debate, is the way in which the animals are slaughtered. That is a slightly more controversial issue, but it needs to be dealt with so that they are properly stunned when it comes to slaughter.
	The hon. Gentleman proposes a good idea. There are European regulations and, having experienced the work of all the other 27—now to be 28—member states, I can
	assure Members that, on the whole, Britain’s methods and inspections of transport are good. That is not to say that we always get everything right but, compared with many member states, our methods are good. We should not beat ourselves up on this issue, but we need to get it right. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet is concerned, and rightly so, about what happened with the Ramsgate shipment and the slaughter of animals on the quayside. There will be a proper inquiry into that and the situation needs to be put right. As I have said, I am certain, in hindsight, that the same action would not be taken again.
	I welcome this debate and reinforce points that have been made by Members of all parties. I do not believe that this is a party political matter. It is a matter of trading properly through the single market and under good conditions, including for welfare, so that the public are assured that our farming community and those involved in the export trade are operating it properly and that the animals get to their destination in good condition.

Caroline Lucas: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, as the sole representative of my political party, it is difficult to be in more than one place at once, but I am working on it.
	I am genuinely glad to take part in this debate, because the issue is close to my heart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for all her work on the issue. She has put it high up on the political agenda again, and I thank her for that.
	I do not think it is useful to characterise this debate as being one between those who are grown up and those who are somehow not grown up. I seriously regret the tone of some of the debate over the past half an hour. We are all trying to work out how to reduce the harm that can be done to animals in the live animal trade, and there is a legitimate debate to be had on whether it is ever possible to put in place sufficient safeguards for live animal exports in order to ensure the welfare of the animals. Some people—including some of the hon. Members present—believe that it is possible to do that, but there is a group of people who are not un-grown up, who are not unscientific and who are not in some way defective who have genuine concerns about whether or not, even if we had an eight-hour journey limit, we can look after animals sufficiently.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Several of us who spoke earlier—I accept that the hon. Lady has greater difficulties than others in attending debates—put on record the fact that we choose not to eat meat and poultry and that we would prefer it if other people did not, either. We have been debating two distinct issues: one is the principle of live animal exports, and the other is what happened at Ramsgate. For many people, they are the same issue, but for others they are two distinct issues that need to be addressed in different ways.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I genuinely think is extremely helpful and very much welcome.
	I come to the issue from the perspective of having spent 10 years in the European Parliament. I was vice-president of the animal welfare intergroup. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was its president and he did a great job.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady has mentioned guarantees in live export. As a crofter, I cannot give guarantees on live beasts on the croft. Something could happen to them—they could fall into a ditch or they could get snared in a fence. There are hazards all the time and there is no absolute guarantee I can give. All I can do is minimise the hazards to the best of my ability and with the knowledge built up over a number of years.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suppose that he makes my point. There is a parallel between this debate and some of our debates on the use of wild animals in circuses. On the one hand, we can try to reduce the harm done to those animals; on the other hand, we can say that, no matter how hard we try, ultimately it is not a good place for animals to be. I would argue that being on long-distance transportation is not a good place for animals to be, either, and others may come to a similar conclusion.
	I believe that long journeys can be stressful for sheep and calves. The stress factors include deprivation of food and water, lack of rest, extremes of temperature and humidity, handling by humans, exposure to novel environments, overcrowding, insufficient headroom, noise and vibration. Animal welfare is not served by long journeys or by the poor treatment that is often experienced by animals at the journey’s end.
	Yesterday’s announcement by DEFRA that it is strengthening the controls that apply to live exports is a step in the right direction, but there is no guarantee that British animals will be protected from the suffering that they currently endure when being transported abroad.

Roger Williams: Some of us are concerned that people do not draw a distinction between export and the movement of animals. The suspicion is that there will be a move to stop all movement of animals, because people cannot see the difference between exporting an animal and just moving an animal.

Caroline Lucas: That is a helpful intervention. I would much prefer to see many more small, local abattoirs around the country so that even within this country we do not have long journey times. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Although one can argue that more stress factors are involved in transporting animals overseas, such as animals being decanted into different vehicles, even if animals are transported within the UK for eight hours or more, it is not necessarily in their best interests.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Lady seems to be missing the point that was made earlier about some of our smaller communities, such as Arran, the Western Isles and some parts of Wales and the highlands of Scotland, which simply could not have a local abattoir. Is she saying that she opposes the movement of sheep, cattle and pigs from the Western Isles or Arran by boat?

Caroline Lucas: What I am saying is that we could be more creative in looking for solutions. In other countries where big distances are involved, one economic response has been to have mobile abattoirs. In remote areas where it is uneconomic to have an abattoir because it would not be served by many animals, a mobile abattoir might be more practical. I would like to make some progress, if I may.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Lucas: No, because I want to make some progress, if I may.
	Calf exports have been declining amid concerns in some important countries about bovine tuberculosis. However, as Members know, countries such as Spain are still major destinations for British calves. Journeys to Spain can take more than 90 hours and young calves are poorly equipped to withstand the rigours of such a journey. Dr Claire Weeks, the senior research fellow in animal welfare at Bristol university has concluded:
	“Scientific evidence indicates that young calves are not well adapted to cope with transport… Therefore transport should be avoided where possible, particularly as morbidity and mortality following transport can be high.”
	On arrival in Europe, calves are typically kept on concrete or slatted floors without any straw or other bedding. Such barren systems have been outlawed in the UK. There is a real question about the ethical acceptability of calves being sent for rearing abroad in conditions that have been prohibited on welfare grounds here at home.
	With calf exports declining, the industry has been considering alternatives, for example through the work of the Beyond Calf Exports Stakeholders Forum. That initiative involves beef and dairy industry bodies, Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA, Government, retailers and academics. The forum is starting to overturn the assumption that male dairy calves produce low-quality beef and hence should be exported for veal production or shot in the head soon after birth. As a result of its work, male dairy calves are increasingly being reared in Britain to high welfare standards, with a resultant fall in the number of calves shot at birth or exported for veal production. I am confident that more dairy farmers would abandon the trade if the Government engaged with the industry more proactively and gave them more help to do so. The carcass-only trade is already widespread and I want to see an end to the remaining exports of live calves.
	The export of sheep is in many ways no better. It, too, entails significant suffering and long, stressful journeys. In addition, British animals may experience poor welfare in European abattoirs. In 2007-08, a French animal welfare organisation carried out an investigation into 25 French slaughterhouses and found many breaches of EU legislation that is meant to protect the welfare of animals at slaughter. Earlier this year, a report by the EU’s food and veterinary office identified a number of serious animal welfare problems in Dutch slaughterhouses. The Netherlands is the destination for many sheep that are exported from Britain. Once animals leave our shores, we are powerless to ensure that they are treated properly. All the evidence suggests that they are not necessarily being treated with standards comparable to our own welfare expectations.
	For sheep, as for calves, I believe that the trade should be meat and carcass only. Slaughtering a higher proportion of animals in the UK for domestic consumption or meat exports could create jobs and increase profits here. Indeed, the economic case for the live export of sheep seems negligible. In 2011, just 0.5% of the sheep reared in the UK were slaughtered abroad. That is 72,458 sheep, compared with the 14.5 million that were slaughtered in the UK. It is difficult to believe that transporting such a relatively small number of animals abroad for slaughter makes a significant contribution to the sheep sector’s earnings, or that that contribution justifies the suffering that the sheep undergo during the long journey from the UK. The UK economy would probably benefit much more from the added value derived from processing animals at home, rather than exporting the raw material for the benefit of processors abroad.
	Much of this debate has focused on the disaster at the port of Ramsgate. Animal welfare conditions are questionable during the process of live transport, as well as on arrival. Other Members have spoken strongly about the Russian tanker, the Joline, which had to turn back en route to Calais because of adverse weather conditions. The ship’s design means that it is particularly sensitive to poor conditions. On this occasion, the sea was breaking over the vessel. Its design also means that there is little leeway between the time that it takes to cross the channel and the maximum journey time for calves of nine hours after a one hour rest at port. On another occasion, the vessel was held at Ramsgate for two hours because of adverse weather warnings and the lorries on board were in danger of exceeding the journey limit.
	In a six-month period when the RSPCA was inspecting every vehicle involved in the trade through Ramsgate for infractions, it issued six warning notices. In September 2012, one lorry was stopped because of faults with the vehicle. The animals were unloaded and two sheep, one with a broken leg, were put down. Another 41 lame sheep were euthanised. Six sheep fell into the water after they were loaded into an area where a drain became exposed. Four of them were rescued by RSPCA officers, but two drowned. It appears that a proportion of the lame sheep were injured during the journey owing to a defect in the vehicle, but others were apparently lame before the start of the journey. By law, an official veterinarian must, before an export journey begins, certify that the animals are fit to travel.
	That case raises serious questions. If some sheep were lame before the journey, why did the vet who inspected them certify them as being fit to travel? Are the checks and balances that are meant to be in place fit for purpose? Given those failures, can DEFRA’s ordering more inspections give us confidence? It is not even clear whether it intends to increase the number of inspections that are taking place or simply to meet its current legal obligations.
	I agree with those who have said that the facilities are Ramsgate are not suitable for ensuring the welfare of animals if they need to be offloaded in an emergency. Despite the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) saying that he intends to pursue a zero-tolerance approach to animal welfare and live exports, I think that the contingency plans that DEFRA
	has announced are inadequate. A temporary ban on live animal exports out of Ramsgate was lifted last month, but legal action is still under way. It is vital that far more is done to safeguard the welfare of animals that are shipped through the port, especially as access for the RSPCA to inspect conditions has been denied.
	In the 1990s, the European Court of Justice twice ruled that the UK cannot ban live exports. Such action has to be taken at EU level. That does not let the Government off the hook. There is much more than they could be doing to bring this trade to an end. They could go to Brussels and press for a change in EU law to allow individual member states to ban live exports.
	Since the two European Court cases, article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union has recognised animals as “sentient beings”. It requires the EU and member states, in formulating and implementing EU policies on agriculture, transport and the single market, to
	“pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”.
	That article creates a new legislative landscape in which, with the right political will, the UK would be justified in pressing for the right to lawfully end this trade.
	Earlier this week, MEPs voted for improvements to the conditions in which live animals are exported, but they failed to reduce the maximum journey time. How different might the result of that vote have been if the UK had actively lobbied for an eight-hour limit? The Government must take the lead in pressing the EU to place a maximum limit of eight hours on journeys to slaughter or for further fattening.

Thomas Docherty: I am puzzled. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that, given the current location of abattoirs, an eight-hour limit would have serious repercussions for the Scottish agriculture industry?

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but we need to look for solutions to that problem. The suggestion is that a trade can carry on despite a wealth of evidence. He asked earlier about my evidence for the cruelty of the trade and I could read out a whole set of scientific studies. I appreciate that difficult discussions and debates must be had about how to safeguard the livelihoods of farmers, about which I care deeply, but to say simply that we should carry on with business as usual is not an adequate response.
	As colleagues will know, I am a former MEP and I have worked extensively on this issue. As I have said, ideally I want a complete ban on the trade of live exports, but imposing a maximum journey time of eight hours would at least help reduce the current suffering. That should also be backed up with sufficient resources to ensure that minimum welfare standards are met.
	For example, DEFRA could carry out more rigorous checks to ensure that the mandatory rest breaks required by EU Council regulation 1/2005 are provided. At present, that seems to be verified primarily via returned journey logs, which are often open to abuse and inaccuracy. Instead, DEFRA should ask the appropriate authority of the member state in which the rest break was due to confirm that it was provided, or check the data on
	which the vehicle’s tachograph or satellite navigation scheme depends. That would show when animals were rested, and for how long.
	The sheep and dairy sectors receive generous subsidies from the taxpayer and we should consider whether they should carry the costs of regulating the trade, particularly the cost of pre-export inspections at the place of departure and the port. The Government could also amend the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to enable ports to refuse to allow live export consignments to use their harbours. I understand that Ramsgate would welcome such a move, as would other UK ports.
	As I said, my constituents have been lobbying me in support of a ban on live exports, and the issue has growing public support. A petition on the No. 10 website has more than 31,000 signatures. That number is growing rapidly every day and I hope that when it reaches 100,000, we can have a further debate and—crucially—MPs can vote on whether to take a stand against the trade. I regret that so few Members are in the Chamber this afternoon but I do not think that that reflects the strength of feeling on the issue. If we had a votable motion, far more colleagues would have attended and contributed strongly to the debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and I conclude with one simple request for the Government to make every effort to end what is a cruel, outdated and unnecessary trade in live animals.

John McDonnell: I, too, apologise for arriving late to the debate. I do not have the same excuse as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) of being the sole representative of my party—although on some issues it feels like it—but I have been dealing with a serious matter in my constituency that may come to the surface in the next few weeks. I am sure that hon. Members will understand.
	I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for securing this debate and for her consistency in raising this issue in recent months. Live exports have become a regular problem. We have had debates in the past, and bans have been introduced at individual ports, but the issue has recurred and there has been more than one incident similar to what happened with the Joline. Time and again I remember hearing reports in this House in which we felt that the appropriate regulatory system had been put in place, only to hear similar reports of problems with animal welfare within months. That is not incompetence; it is an almost blatant disregard of animal welfare by some of those involved in such transactions, and of the legality of some of the cases dealt with. None of the systems that we put in place seemed to have worked, and such cases returned time and again. I therefore came to the conclusion—after receiving briefing from the National Farmers Union as well as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—that the system was not working and that a ban would be the appropriate approach.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, there are two issues. One is a matter of principle—do we support the export of live animals in this way?—and the other is about pragmatic practicality and regulation. Are the Government
	going to continue allowing live exports? I do not believe that European legislation should hold us back because, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, representations can be made and we can use other legislation to enforce the ban if necessary. However, if a ban is not introduced and we seek a pragmatic inspection regime—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for South Thanet—the work done by Thanet district council has been superb. It has set out a number of recommendations, working with the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency and delegating some of those functions to the RSPCA, to gain maximum confidence in the implementation and rigorous nature of those inspections. Those recommendations, if taken on board by the Government, would at least provide a practical way to address effectively some of the abuses of the past.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion of agricultural workers during his time in Parliament—often, I dare say, a lone voice. Does he accept that a ban on live exports would be a huge hit to the agricultural industry and hurt the very workers he has worked so hard to champion?

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend always knows the point of vulnerability in a debate. I have never been convinced about the economic necessity of live exports, which is why the idea of an inquiry is important. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is looking at a wide-ranging inquiry into the practical nature of how the industry operates.
	As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, we need to address the location of abattoirs and how they operate. By locating, promoting and developing local abattoirs we can overcome the problem of the lengthy journeys that animals take, and particularly any necessity to export live animals.

Bob Stewart: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and reading about this issue. Surely when the animals see that ramp into a truck they will start panicking. They must panic the whole time and be terrified for the whole journey and that really worries me. I feel so desperately sad for them that I am beginning to think that the way we should proceed is to slaughter at the farm. I know it is difficult, but that is what I am beginning to think.

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) will come back and argue about the practicalities of that for certain geographical locations in the United Kingdom. However, the desire must be to have slaughter as close to the farm as possible and to obviate the need for any long-distance journeys, whether in the UK or to the continent. I am arguing that we should look again seriously at the recommendations of Thanet district council, the RSPCA and others. From experience, every regime so far put in place has not worked. We had another scandalous example with Joline this time round, and there have been others in the past. That is why I support the proposal for an inquiry.
	I would prefer the Government to set up an independent inquiry, but if it must be the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, so be it. That Committee can
	look at animal welfare, the economics of the industry and why there is such economic necessity for live animal exports, as well as at the distribution of abattoirs, which in themselves have the potential to generate employment. It can look at how, if we are to transport animals in the future, we can reassure people that those animals will be safe and secure, and that their welfare will be maintained not only in this country but, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, when they reach other countries. In the past we seem to have lost control of what happens to our exported stock in other countries.
	That is the short-term practical approach; we need to undertake an inquiry, take on board Thanet district council’s recommendations and introduce an economic debate on this issue. I am also worried about the staffing of individual organisations on which we rely to undertake these tests and checks. I give the example of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Its offices are being closed, staff are being laid off, and I doubt whether it has the capacity to maintain the vehicle inspection regime that we would expect of it. I am also concerned about staffing in DEFRA and the cutbacks there, and about the resources available to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The inquiry should consider that range of staffing issues because the worst thing that could happen is that we put an inspection regime in place, but the resources and the expertise are not available. That includes the expertise of working alongside voluntary organisations such as the RSPCA. That is the problem with a pragmatic approach in the near future if we do not move towards a ban.
	So often, promises have been made, and procedures and regimes have been put in place that have not worked. My view now is therefore that a ban should be introduced because the animal welfare issues are overriding.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about ensuring that adequate resources are available to do the job. On Tuesday, Committee proceedings finished on the HGV Road Levy Bill, which gives the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency additional resources to monitor and enforce the levy that will be introduced in due course for foreign hauliers using our roads. Perhaps the Minister will say whether, given the additional safeguards that appear to be required at Ramsgate, DEFRA will provide additional resources to address that matter.

John McDonnell: I think that the Minister heard the question; he does not need me to repeat it.
	The Minister has a job to do now in negotiating with other Departments. Yesterday, I met some Public and Commercial Services Union representatives, who are involved in the Department for Transport, including VOSA and DVLA. There are genuine issues about the future, including the review of Department functions, the threat of privatisation and outsourcing, and staff numbers. I am therefore fearful for whatever regime we expect to be put in place. I believe that neither the staff nor the expertise are there, or that they will be so stretched that the regime will not meet our requirements.
	After several years as a Member of Parliament, with the problem arising regularly, it is clear that every regime put in place has not worked, resulting in immense animal suffering and immense concern throughout the country. I have many letters from constituents who are
	concerned about the matter and constituents who have been on demonstrations in Ramsgate. Time and again, they have come back extremely concerned about what they have witnessed. It is now therefore my view that we should introduce a ban and, if necessary, lobby Europe to challenge the European interpretation of the directives, thereby reassuring many of our constituents who are anxious about the matter.
	Failing that, if there is to be an inquiry, it needs to be done quickly and be fully inclusive. I am anxious that organisations such as the RSPCA, as well as producer representatives and the trade unions, are fully involved, and that the inquiry comes up with some recommendations fairly soon. That must include representations about the level of resources, as well as the regime that will be put in place.

David Amess: Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you and the House for not being present at the start of the debate. I am a member of the Backbench Business Committee, so I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and her colleagues were successful in obtaining the debate. Unfortunately, I thought that it would start at 1.30, and I have been entertaining a newly elected member of the United States Congress, Mr George Holding, who represents the 13th district in North Carolina, together with Congressman Robert Pittenger. I am sorry.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. That causes some difficulty. We have now had three Members in a row taking part in a debate that they have not heard on the basis that they were busy doing something else. As all hon. Members know, when wishing to take part in a debate, one has to make a choice between being in the Chamber and doing other things. On this occasion, I have called each Member, but I want to put it on the record that the convention of the House is that, if you wish to speak in a debate, that is your priority, and you should be here to do it. The hon. Gentleman, being the third Member in a row to give a reason for not being here, gives me the opportunity to make that point. Those Members have not had the benefit of hearing the other speakers.

David Amess: I have been a Member of Parliament since 1983 and I absolutely agree with everything you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Throughout my time in Parliament, I have supported sensible animal welfare measures. Indeed, if anyone had time on their hands, they could look in Hansard and see that my views on animal welfare have been pretty consistent.

Thomas Docherty: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s reasons for being late. Does he agree that doing television is a poorer excuse for not being here?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are really not going to follow that route. We are considering a serious subject, and I expect Members to continue to behave seriously. So, Mr Docherty, thank you, but we will not have that answered, and Mr Amess, you may continue with your remarks and ignore the intervention.

David Amess: The late Member of Parliament for Newham, North-West, Tony Banks, was a great champion of animal welfare measures, and I would stand shoulder to shoulder with him on the subject of the debate. It saddens me that, nearly 30 years on, we have to revisit the issue.
	I was flattered last year when Dods gave me an award as charity champion for animal welfare and environment, which I accepted on behalf of the animal welfare kingdom. Indeed, I promoted the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988, and I also supported Bills on the welfare of dogs—the list is endless.
	However, I want briefly to consider live export of animals. I am pleased that it is not a growing industry, and that it is shrinking. I note that, for example, the transport of live calves fell from 93,000 in 2007 to just 7,000 in 2009. That is real progress. I hope that, in time, such a debate will be unnecessary.
	I associate myself with the views of the RSPCA, which is a wonderful charity, and which I hope will continue to promote sensible animal welfare issues. It wants an end to long-distance transport of live animals, with the aim of carcass-only trade. It wants a maximum eight-hour journey time for all animals travelling to slaughter. It wants a change to current law to allow ports to refuse to partake in the transport of live animals trade. It also wants the organisations involved in the trade, not the taxpayer, to bear the costs of veterinary and animal health inspections, alongside other costs.

Angus MacNeil: I disagree about animal exports, but would the hon. Gentleman concede that sometimes animals can be exported for breeding purposes, not just for slaughter, so stopping it altogether might have other consequences, which are not the focus of the debate?

David Amess: I recognise that hon. Members rightly represent all sorts of interests. I have said that I support responsible animal welfare measures. I would not want to use the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet has introduced to bash farmers and the farming community. I therefore understand the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made.

Thomas Docherty: Like me, the hon. Gentleman supports banning the use of wild animals in circuses. One of the solutions is to export those wild animals to new homes. If I understand the matter correctly, an unintended consequence of a blanket ban would be that we could not find new homes for those wild animals.

David Amess: I cannot believe for a moment that that would be the result if the motion was supported. I want to stick to my script. I was not present when other issues have been discussed in the Chamber, so I would like to stick to the specific issue that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, said that we should talk about.
	I want to see an end to the long-distance transport of live animals. There is a clear case for the ending of the transport of live animals altogether. It is a cruel practice that regularly leads to the distress—or worse, the death—of animals. Indeed, recently we saw terrible pictures of little puppies who were dead, and rare, exotic fish dead in their containers. For example, inspectors, when they were able to investigate, found one animal with a ripped
	horn that had to be euthanised. In another incident, a vehicle had to offload all its sheep and 46—yes, 46—had to be euthanised for various reasons. Any practice that regularly inflicts such pain on living creatures, and, worse, regularly leads to their deaths, should be ended as soon as possible.
	This is not an impossible dream. More often than not, animals are now slaughtered in their country of origin and then transported to whichever country they are going to. That is a much more humane way to approach the transportation of animals. Another reason why it is right to pursue the end of this practice is that even if we manage to transport live animals effectively and safely, we cannot ensure that the countries the animals arrive in live up to our high standards.
	Compassion in World Farming has issued a report that shows that many member states do not provide penalties that are “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. While some countries have shown recent signs of improvement, namely the Czech Republic, Italy and Romania, the European Union Food and Veterinary Office indicates that they, and other countries, still need substantial improvements in enforcement levels. Those two reasons—the cruel nature of transportation and the worrying lack of enforcement in other EU member states—are reason enough for wanting the practice of live transportation to be stopped altogether. That said, until that aim is fulfilled, there are other curbs that could be applied to the industry to protect transported animals. For example, there should be a maximum eight-hour journey time. Journeys for calves can be up to 19 hours, and for horses and pigs up to 24 hours. For horses and pigs, 29 hours can be an incredibly long time before a 24-hour rest. That is cruel—to make any creature travel for 29 hours before having a rest is very cruel indeed. At the very least, a middle ground should be found that enforces shorter breaks after eight hours, and then a longer 24-hour rest at the current limit.
	On ports, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states on its website that when dealing with animals it is important that vehicle loading and unloading facilities are designed and constructed to avoid injury and suffering. While that may be the case for road vehicles, I have concerns about the UK ports that animals leave from and about the ships that transport them. According to the RSPCA, the Joline, an old Russian tanker, currently transports animals from Ramsgate. It is too slow, and is overly exposed to poor weather conditions. I urge the House not to accept such poor conditions for animals who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
	It appears that the ports of Ramsgate, Ipswich and Newhaven do not all currently live up to the standards set out in section 23 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Ports have no choice but to opt out of the transportation of live animals due to the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. I believe strongly in choice. Ports that currently do not have the right facilities to transport animals to a high standard must be able to choose whether they wish to partake in this practice.
	On veterinary costs, the economy is going through tough times at the moment. There a lot of elderly people in Southend West, the area I represent, and animals are their lives. Animals are everything to them and we should not trivialise how important they are to them. Veterinary bills can be very high. The taxpayer
	foots the bill for veterinary checks on animals in live transportation. If that cost was shifted to those involved in the industry—I know that hon. Members with farming interests will say that that would be yet another burden passed on to them—not only would the taxpayer save money during these hard times, but the industry would be incentivised to look after its animals well, as the cost of veterinary bills could otherwise be very high.
	The last topic I wish to touch on is labelling. It has come to my attention that a sheep or cow can be born, raised and fed here in England, transported to France and, once slaughtered, labelled, “produce of France”. If, as I hope, the EU agrees to stop this practice, surely the incidence of live transportation will fall as the pressure to have and eat home-grown food in each European member state will grow. I therefore urge hon. Members to support any such law on labelling.
	In my brief speech I hope that I have highlighted a number of issues I feel strongly about that have not already been covered concerning the suffering of animals. Maximum journey times must come down if at all possible. Ports must be able to opt out if they do not feel that they have the resources to adequately look after animals. Veterinary costs should not be met at the expense of the public purse. Labelling issues need to be addressed.
	We must look after animals to the best of our ability. The fact that we need this debate at all sadly reminds me of the quote attributed to Frederick the Great:
	“The more I see of men, the more I like my dog.”
	I then think of the quote from Ghandi:
	“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
	I said that I entered this place 30 years ago. We are hardly pressed for time in this place. We used to sit until 3 o’clock or 4 o’clock in the morning. We used to sit for five days a week—we certainly put the hours in. Hon. Members no doubt love to pat dogs and like to see cats in their constituencies. They are concerned about their constituents, who feel that their animals are important. They should demonstrate their support for animals by supporting the motion introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. I would hope that most hon. Members feel that transporting live animals in horrendous conditions is totally unacceptable. We live in an era where we no longer write letters to each other. MPs respond to e-mails, blogging, Facebook and so on. There is not the amount of personal contact that there used to be.
	I was privileged recently to attend two carol services for animals. I feel very strongly that the quality of our nation should increasingly be judged by how we treat the animal kingdom.

Angus MacNeil: I am intrigued about the carol service for animals. Was it per chance, “The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes”, or something of that sort?

Dawn Primarolo: I think the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) has finished, so, if that was your speech, Mr MacNeil, it was quite a short contribution. Do you wish to say a little more?

Angus MacNeil: indicated dissent.

Dawn Primarolo: Okay.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It is a privilege to follow such a commendable contribution. I understand that a few weeks ago one of my Labour colleagues made a contribution of one word, before time ran out, so the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) does not get the record, but it was quite a contribution none the less.
	People watching will have seen a well balanced, diverse range of well considered contributions and interventions putting forward a variety of views on animal welfare and the live transportation of animals. It has been a good day for the House, and I hope that I and the Minister will continue in that frame of mind. I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and other Members, not only for calling the debate and enabling us to air our concerns, but for maintaining and arguing in favour of their long-standing, if sometimes differing, views. I will deal with the contributions first, because some of them pre-empt my own comments.
	The hon. Lady spoke eloquently on behalf of herself, her constituents and—I suspect—her local authority, given that its views are very much aligned with hers, and said that DEFRA had been a bit too “meek and mild” and might need to go further. I will try to draw that out in my comments too. She said that DEFRA might need to focus more on this intriguing idea of fit and proper operators—a leitmotif in several contributions. We are talking not always about individual instances, but about operators that have had constant warnings—mention was made of six warnings in a short period in Ramsgate—and those patterns of behaviour draw out an interesting theme for the Minister. What does zero tolerance actually mean? When should we intervene to stop something that is a genuine animal welfare concern?
	On another interesting theme, the hon. Lady talked about cost-sharing. Like other Members, including those who have farmed for many years, I sometimes wonder how the economics of this trade stack up. But they do stack up. The live export of lamb from south Wales, the moors of Ramsgate or Scotland maintains not just a premium price but a remarkably high premium price—there is huge demand for it. It would be interesting to know what would happen to the economics of the model if the additional costs of inspection, licensing and the adequate enforcement of animal welfare considerations—so that we can have real confidence in the integrity of the process, particularly of the long-distance travel—were loaded on to the transporters.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who has been a consistent campaigner on animal welfare issues, rightly recognised the differing standards of animal welfare applied in many parts of the continent—another issue that I will return to—and its impact on the UK export trade. Even if all our domestic arrangements for animal exports are of the highest standards—what the hon. Member for South Thanet called the “gold standard” that we should be proud of aspiring to—what happens if the animals pass through or reach a part of the continent where the standards fall well below what we would expect? I ask the Minister to focus on that.
	This has to be about the end-to-end journey, not simply about what we are doing. The hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) would be appalled if any animals they were trading in—having done all the right things, such as loading the animals in good condition and ready for market, in the belief that they would be transported in good condition and get rested, fed, watered and given emergency treatment when needed—were ending up somewhere on the continent, such as Spain or even Brussels, where the same rigorous standards of animal welfare were not being applied. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East put to the Minister the valid question of what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on this issue, particularly on the topical issue in Europe at the moment—it is being debated as we speak and has been debated all week—which is the consistency of those standards across the EU. I am sure that the Minister will address those concerns.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire spoke with great personal insight and expertise—given his farming background—and spoke proudly in favour of the gold-plating of animal welfare. He said we should be doing that and that he would want to be doing that as a farmer. He took pride in driving towards those standards. We are talking, of course, in part about a sector—sheep exporting—that is for farmers who are not prosperous or massive landowners. These people are often farming on less favoured agricultural land where the only option is sheep farming. Only a few years back, the price of those carcasses was half or a third of what they are now. They have always struggled, but they have always focused on the highest standards, and the Government need to help them to do that.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case. He just mentioned personal experience. Will he say a bit more about his own personal experiences in this industry, and will he set out what terms of reference he thinks the Select Committee should consider, if we do indeed do a report?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall return later to the specific things that the inquiry should consider—it will not be an exhaustive list, but I will give some good pointers. On my own personal experience, I have not been a sheep farmer, but my friendly and well loved father-in-law was a sheep farmer for many years on the uplands of the Brecon Beacons.

Angus MacNeil: Crawler!

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. I am just worried about any inheritance potential, so I had better continue.
	For many years my father-in-law was a sheep farmer, and I would go out and help him. I was born on the Gower and, curiously, my first ever job as a young lad of 10 or 11—I know not everybody will like this, including on my Benches—was to go to Gowerton market. At that time, we had a live market right in the centre of the village—it is long gone; now it is housing. We had just turned metric, and my job in the market, for 50p a day, was to go with the farmers on the back of their wagons, load what seemed to me to be these
	massive beasts—they were massive, because even a sheep to me at that age appeared to be very big—and take them off to what were then local slaughterhouses and abattoirs. One of the problems with those abattoirs is that not all of them had the high standards that we now expect. We have seen a diminution in the number of abattoirs across the country, which brings us back to the points that many Members have made. We would love to see more local abattoirs—I will raise this again with the Minister in a moment—but we also need to have high quality abattoirs, with the very highest standards for both consumers and farmers.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the reduction in the number of abattoirs. In this important book—“Little Book of Meat Facts”, published by Hybu Cig Cymru—it says that in 1990 there were more than 60 slaughterhouses in Wales and that in 2011 there were just over 20. That gives an indication of the reduction in the number of slaughterhouses.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a good intervention, which points to a long-term trend. Some of the reasons behind it were negative, in that the drive to improve standards in slaughterhouses and abattoirs meant that some of the smaller and—let us be honest—lower-standard ones were forced to close. We are fortunate, because the town I live in—Maesteg, which has a population of 17,000—still has a working, prosperous, thriving abattoir right in the centre, which is unusual nowadays. The abattoir services not only the local farmers, but the butchers in town, which are also thriving. However, that is unusual. The abattoir has had to increase its standards massively and absorb those costs or pass them on. Perhaps the Minister will return in his closing comments—I think we will have time—to what more can be done not only to protect the remaining network of abattoirs at the very highest standards, but to encourage, where possible, the resurrection of others. There are some worries—the pig sector has been mentioned, with the retreat of Vion from the market, but there are others as well. We want the resilience of the slaughtering sector to be maintained.

Anne McIntosh: rose —

Huw Irranca-Davies: I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Anne McIntosh: As the Minister probably knows, an announcement on Vion is imminent, but does the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) agree that the reduction in the number of small abattoirs probably contributed to foot and mouth disease spreading in the way it did? Small abattoirs are also hugely popular with farm shops and help the local farming community enormously.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the popularity of small abattoirs increasing as people become much more aware of the provenance and source of their food. Her first point is also valid, because of the biosecurity risks that result from increased animal movements generally. In my constituency, farmers
	would summer-pasture their sheep down in the lowlands and in the winter literally drive them on to the top. Come time for market, they would drive the sheep down the old drovers’ route into Blackmill for the market—a grass-based market, not a concrete market—from where they would go straight to the local shops and so on. Those days are gone. We now routinely—because of biosecurity, as well as for other reasons—shift animals in trucks. That brings with it the massive obligation of looking after their welfare.

Bob Stewart: Is it not also true that a local abattoir gets better meat because there is less stress on the animals, which directly affects the quality of meat?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am not in a position to make a completely evidence-based judgment on that. I can only say that we buy directly from our local abattoir in Maesteg, and the produce is absolutely fantastic.

Thomas Docherty: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend out. The answer is that it depends on the stress that the animal goes through in the build-up. The point is—it is a point he has made before—that although at first glance a local abattoir might be preferable, if standards of hygiene and humane treatment are not met, that leads to a poorer outcome. I suspect that the key thing in this debate is the standards of humane treatment that we all want to see.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly formed point.
	I shall proceed at a rate of knots now, because I want to touch on the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire talked about the Spanish diet given to exported sheep. I am intrigued to know what it consists of; I suspect that it is not tapas. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) spoke with the benefit of his experience as a well loved and well respected food and farming Minister, although he was not quite so well respected by publications such as Horse & Hound. He made a considered and well balanced contribution, in which he rightly praised the higher standards generally to be found in the UK. He also echoed other Members’ call for a wider review, in the interests of animal welfare and of the industry. He made detailed points about the Ramsgate incident, as did others, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire also has huge experience in this area. I do not think that my father-in-law’s sheep ever mingled with his; there was a little obstacle in the way, known as the Brecon Beacons. He focused on animal welfare considerations and raised the issue of zero tolerance. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister define that concept. What does it mean, particularly in the context of repeat offending by individuals, companies or organisations? Are we going to step in and take action much more rapidly in those circumstances? I hope that the answer will be yes.

David Heath: indicated  assent .

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am glad the Minister confirms that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, made a very good contribution. He talked about getting a fair price for meat exports, which could help to continue the downward trend in live exports. If farmers are able to get a good price for meat on the hook, rather than on the hoof, they will certainly go for that market. I am glad that he also mentioned the importance of listening to the views of the devolved nations and Administrations.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) rightly spoke about end-to-end protection for animals throughout their whole journey. He also mentioned the importance of the right provision of animal welfare being in the right place at the right time. The Ramsgate incident illustrates that need. Having lairage facilities in the right places along the route, for example, is critical. I hope that the Minister’s internal review of the Ramsgate incident will throw up some of those issues for wider discussion. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton also said that live animal exports represent only a tiny proportion of the export market. He is right to say that live exports are declining as a part of the overall meat sector, but they are nevertheless vital for certain farmers, especially those who are not big, wealthy barley barons.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a good contribution. We have to respect those whose ethical reasoning leads them to form different conclusions from those of other Members who are also exercising their own ethical reasoning. She went into quite some detail about the importance of maintaining animal welfare standards from end to end. She also referred to the very good initiative between Compassion in World Farming and the NFU on the treatment of young calves in the pink veal trade. That initiative has enormous potential, but we need to take consumers with us as well and to brand that. We have done that successfully in other meat areas over the years, but it has usually taken a few years to get there. It is great to see animal welfare organisations working hand in hand with farming organisations to try to create that market.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about patterns of behaviour leading to regular problems. That links back to the question of zero tolerance. I welcome his support for an inquiry, whoever might carry it out. I hope that the Minister will change his mind and express an interest in such an inquiry, but if not, I look forward to hearing the response of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), to whom I have recently written on this issue. My hon. Friend also raised the vital issue of the capacity of the animal inspectors at the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency to carry out inspections in the light of the cutbacks and of the rise in concern about confidence in the trade. How will such inspections be sourced, given that DEFRA has already had cutbacks, along with every Department, and is now facing more?
	The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) spoke eloquently about the RSPCA campaign, and I thank the RSPCA, the NFU and many other organisations for contributing to the debate and providing briefings for it. Interestingly, he raised the issue—nobody else did—of the labelling and provenance of meat that is transported to various destinations and rebranded as indigenous to an area different from where it was raised and produced.
	I think we all agree that animal welfare considerations in the movement of live animals for trade, for slaughter, for breeding or for other reasons should be absolutely paramount. Logically, the volume and duration of the movements of live animals should therefore be kept to a minimum. That is why in opposition now, as when in government, we want a growth in the trade and export of meat or germ plasm rather than of live animals. That is why in opposition, as when in government, we believe it best that animals are slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible so that the transportation of live animals is minimised and the welfare considerations are lessened. In short, more exports on the hook, not on the hoof, is the right aim.
	The trade is legal, and any attempt to ban it, which has wider European and UK-Ireland implications than the focus on any one transit route such as the one through Ramsgate might suggest, would break on the rocks of article 34 of the treaty of Rome. That was the consistent legal advice we received in government—my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse would have received it—so I invite the Minister to intervene to say whether that advice has changed in any way.

David Heath: indicated  dissent .

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister shakes his head, so the advice is still the same. In that case, our focus must be on the paramount issue of animal welfare considerations for a trade that will continue, to and from the UK and across other parts of the Europe, for the foreseeable future.

Angus MacNeil: Is not the key point the fact that when it comes to the crossing of borders, animal welfare is the bottom line?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a point that is absolutely valid. We strongly believe in that focus, the Minister strongly believes in it and many contributors to the debate believe that the focus must be animal welfare. I did not touch on an issue that was raised consistently in this debate: that even if we take away the crossing of seas to Ireland, Northern Ireland, the highlands and islands and mainland Europe, we still have a massive internal trade of live animal shipments, and it is part of the integrity of our current livestock business. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to say that we should focus on animal welfare.
	I say that in the knowledge that, only yesterday or the day before, the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development voted strongly in plenary session to support a report on the protection of animals during transport, which had many recommendations. As I know from my meetings with European parliamentarians and Commission officials in Brussels over the last few weeks, this issue is of topical concern right across Europe, not just in the UK. It is a good and comprehensive report that makes some sensible recommendations on the effective and improved implementation of existing measures to safeguard animal welfare.
	May I draw the Minister’s attention to the one part of the report that is causing great debate at the moment and that has been referred to in today’s debate—the
	growing momentum behind support for an eight-hour maximum for animals travelling for slaughter or for fattening across the EU? As has been mentioned, over 1 million EU citizens have now signed a petition that was organised by Compassion in World Farming and others.

Anne McIntosh: A local farmer recently approached me to say that for the first time he has won an order to transport a small number of cattle from Thirsk to Italy in excellent conditions. This would probably breach that petition, but would not breach animal welfare provisions. He would risk losing that trade, as would many others from Scotland and other parts of the north of England, if we strictly implemented what the shadow Minister proposes.

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is not what I am proposing. What I am proposing is a live debate. Given the existence of a petition bearing more than 1 million signatures, I think that we need to consider the issue in considerable detail. That would include consideration of impacts such as the one cited by the hon. Lady, about which I shall say more in a moment. She has made a very valid point.

Roger Williams: I think that the public often assume that all animal transport takes place in the worst conditions. A good debate on the issue, and an understanding that some transport conditions are a great deal better than others, would help us to reach a conclusion.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As we know, the big issues that hit the headlines in the press involve the worst possible examples. What they do not tell us is that, as has rightly been pointed out a number of times today, the standards that we apply in the UK—at least within UK borders, because beyond those borders a difficulty arises—are generally much higher. We have not been singled out by the European Commission for having poor standards of animal welfare. It would be churlish of me, at Christmas, to name the areas in Europe—whole areas, as well as individual nations—where there are such problems.
	Although today’s debate has been very useful, I would go further if I were in the Minister’s shoes. I would be seriously thinking of commissioning a piece of work—let us call it an impact assessment, for want of a better phrase—dealing with the likely effects of an eight-hour journey limit on the transport of live animals both inside and outside the UK. Let us see, in black and white, the probable impacts on exports of live animals to the continent, on trade between Great Britain and Ireland—including Northern Ireland—and on internal movements on the UK mainland and between the highlands and islands. Let us not leap to conclusions. Let us make our policy on the basis of the evidence: the evidence on animal welfare, and the socio-economic evidence.
	In making that policy, we must acknowledge that, although the focus in the United Kingdom has recently been on exports via Ramsgate involving the hugely regrettable slaughter of more than two score animals, there is a far wider trade—most of it involving short journeys, but some, by necessity, involving longer ones—within the UK, among our islands, and with our neighbours in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Although the Minister’s focused investigation of the lessons to be learned from
	Ramsgate is welcome—I should like to know when we are likely to see its outcome, by the way—it is essential for a wider review to be conducted so that we do not end up making policy on the basis of individual incidents, no matter how harrowing they may be. That piece of work should also pull together the best available evidence from all sources on the animal welfare considerations that would support, or otherwise, the case for any limit on the duration of a journey.
	The time is right for a more wide-ranging review of the live animal trade to and from the UK. It should be independent of the trade in order to be seen to be fair and impartial. It could focus on animal welfare considerations, but also on the economic importance or otherwise of the trade. It might give the existing trade a clean bill of health, or highlight areas of concern where improvement is needed. In either event, it would benefit the trade to have, as it were, an MOT, in the light of well-publicised recent concerns that risk damaging not just the trade in live exports, but the wider reputation of the food and farming sector.
	I have discussed this matter with representatives of farming unions. I have told them that I believe it would be in their interests to support the call for a review of the trade, and I hope that any of them who hear or read my words will support that reasonable call. Resisting it would suggest there was something to hide. As the Minister knows, I have already asked, in a written parliamentary question, whether he is minded to carry out a review, and he replied that he had no plans to do so. That is a pity, because I think that he could do a service to the industry and to animal welfare by changing his mind. He recently changed his mind about including the power to use financial penalties in the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which was a welcome precedent. He is a listening Minister.
	In the absence of the Minister’s willingness to carry out a review, I wrote to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the knowledge that, given her expertise and that of the other Committee Members, a forensic and helpful eye could be cast on these matters. I know that the Committee’s programme of activities is chock-a-block, but if it is unable to pursue a separate review of the trade, perhaps that could be incorporated in the wider animal welfare review which I understand that it may be undertaking in the new year.
	Such a wider review could address the following questions. Is the level of veterinary inspection sufficient at all stages of the journey, from the loading of animals through to ports or other stations and onward on the UK mainland, the European mainland and in Ireland and Northern Ireland? Such an investigation could also serve to provide us with an end-to-end assessment of the level of mortality and injury. What assessment has the Minister made of the levels of mortality within different sectors of the trade and on different durations of journey? Is the current level of inspection good enough for longer journeys?
	We welcome the Minister’s temporary strengthening of procedures through Ramsgate, but it is only temporary. Should the current heightened level of inspection be maintained, and have any areas of concern been identified? Are animals that are unfit for travel ever loaded? I hope not, but it is one of the concerns people feel. Why is some unsuitable transport still being used? How often
	does that happen, and what sanctions are imposed? Should we take more robust action against the risk-takers and the rogues?
	There are major issues to be addressed if Ramsgate or any other port is to be used as the long-term staging post for live exports, including the suitability of vessels and the availability of emergency facilities at or near the port for unloading, feeding and watering animals. Which exit points from the UK are most suitable in respect of minimising animals’ travel time? Is it desirable at all to offload animals at a port, except in the most exceptional circumstances, where they cannot be transported to a nearby facility? Do some transporters have a history of poor animal welfare behaviour?
	On the wider issue of animal transportation across the UK, do any aspects need to be addressed to ensure we comply fully with our obligations under EU regulation 1/2005? If additional measures are identified in a wider review, the Government should take action under article 1.3 of the regulation.
	What is the Minister doing to make good on his, and our, ambition to encourage the slaughter of animals close to their point of production, in order to minimise the transportation of live animals? Is the reduction in numbers, and geographical spread, of abattoirs a relevant factor? I think it is, so what more can we do to promote local slaughter?
	This has been a very good debate with some expert and well-informed contributions. I hope the Minister will deal in detail with the concerns expressed, and finally may I reiterate a request I made in a letter to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, and urge the Minister to consider whether, in addition to the Ramsgate-focused review, we should look more broadly at animal welfare issues and the socio-economic aspects of the wider trade in and out of the UK?

David Heath: I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that this has been an extremely good debate. The speeches have been well informed, non-sensationalist and have expressed various points of view. I have hugely enjoyed listening to all the contributions from both sides of the Chamber. Members have deeply held beliefs, but recognise the facts. I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for securing the debate and for her contribution to it. I also recognise that she and her constituents have been put under considerable pressure on an almost daily basis for some time, as has Thanet district council. I commend her on the way she has addressed the issue in question and tried to secure the best possible outcome.
	I am particularly pleased that the hon. Lady began by talking about our country’s proud history in respect of animal welfare. We should not shy away from the fact that we have a very good record at promoting animal welfare and ensuring that rules and laws are enforced. The title of today’s debate does not confine itself to live animal exports, although inevitably that is what most hon. Members have wanted to focus on, as it also deals with wider animal welfare issues. Even in the very recent past, we have been making steady progress on improving the welfare of all kept animals. That is not
	surprising because that is one of the top priorities in my Department and within government. So we have ensured that no hens are kept in battery cages. We have also ensured that our farmers do not use sow stalls, and of course the European ban is coming up. The hon. Member for South Thanet asked me whether there was an instance recently when we had been pressing for European compliance, and I can tell her that that is a clear area where we have been pushing very hard to ensure that other member states comply with the regulation coming into effect on 1 January. I fear that some states will not be ready to have 100% compliance, and that is not acceptable. We have been having discussions with the European Commissioner, who I believe shares that view, to say that that is not acceptable and member states will be expected to comply.

Anne McIntosh: We have the opportunity to recognise and celebrate this high standard of animal welfare in this country, which we introduced as early as the 1990s, disadvantaging our own farmers, who have faced what one might call unfair competition from other EU member states.

David Heath: That is precisely the case, and now is the time to level that playing field for our producers. We have commitments—I have personally been given commitments—from the main retailers in this country that they will not import meat derived from non-compliant states. I want to hold them to that, because it is only fair to our producers that if they are expected to comply with high welfare standards, as they should be, others have to do the same.

Chris Williamson: On that wider theme, what would the Minister say about the importation of foie gras? Would he be sympathetic to trying to take measures to prevent the cruel practice that takes place on the continent, with that product then being imported into the UK?

David Heath: My personal view is that people should not buy foie gras, because of the method of production. It is up to people to make their own decision about what they buy, but unless there is a humane way of producing foie gras, and I am far from convinced that there is, they should make that decision when they decide what to put into their shopping trolley—I suspect that foie gras is rarely put into a shopping trolley—and what they ask people to provide for them. We have taken a view in this country; foie gras is a legal import and therefore there is no constraint that we can place on its importation, but we can ask people to think carefully about what they buy. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
	Let me continue setting out our recent measures: we have set a maximum stocking density for meat chickens that is lower than that required by European regulation; we have made sure that farm inspections are better targeted on the farms more likely to have welfare problems; for the first time, we have welfare standards for game birds; we have delivered a licensing regime to safeguard the welfare of circus animals, and we are working on delivering a ban, as hon. Members know; we are working on proposals to tackle—

Chris Williamson: rose —

David Heath: I have just given way to the hon. Gentleman and he cannot really have two bites in the same sentence. We are working on proposals to tackle irresponsible dog ownership and to protect the welfare of animals in slaughterhouses; and we have demanded in Europe better protection for animals being transported for long distances, especially horses and unweaned calves—that comes back to a point to which we will return.
	Having set out that broad framework, let me move on to the topic that most of this debate is about: live animal exports. I am going to use phrases that are uncannily similar to those used by the hon. Member for Ogmore in expressing the Government’s position and my personal position. I want to see animals slaughtered as near as possible to their point of production, and I would prefer to see a trade in meat or germ plasm to a trade based on live animals, particularly where journeys may result in livestock travelling very long distances across Europe. There are a number of reasons for that. Quite apart from animal welfare, it helps to support our domestic slaughter industry and is simply more sustainable. We should bear that in mind, too.
	Local abattoirs, which are a very important issue, were mentioned, as was the fact that we have lost so many. In opposition under the last Government, I was critical of the fact that we lost so many abattoirs under them. The hon. Member for Ogmore is nodding; he probably remembers me saying that. If he does not, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) probably does.
	The lack of abattoirs is becoming a major issue in many areas. I was on the Isle of Wight the other week and the island does not have an abattoir, so any animals that go to slaughter have to cross the Solent. People on the Isle of Wight would like to have an abattoir on the island. They are right to want one and we need to find ways in which we can support a viable alternative to ensure that they have. If we are talking about never moving animals across any waterways, the Isle of Wight will have a problem. Let us bear that in mind when we talk about what constitutes the export of live animals.
	Again, I do not want merely to echo the hon. Member for Ogmore—that is a very bad practice—but I must say, in similar terms to those that he used, that the trade in live animals is lawful and we must remember that. There were a number of legal challenges by local and port authorities in the early to mid-1990s, but none were successful. In fact, some of those authorities have had to pay significant damages to exporters as a direct result of their failed attempt to block the trade by direct or indirect means. That is why, although I understand the sentiment expressed, I have a little difficulty dealing with writing campaigns that use postcards, e-mails and the rest of it to tell me that I must ban the live trade when I have no power to do so. It would fundamentally change the basis of free trade within the European Union area if we were to do so. We might want to do that and consensus might form in the EU at some stage, but it is not there at the moment and it is therefore not within my power to make that change.

Peter Bottomley: I am sorry that I have not been in the Chamber for the whole debate, but I have been here for quite some time and
	speak as someone who was a Minister for agriculture for a time 22 years ago. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we cannot say that something is illegal when it is not, but I think the test is the degree of reasonableness or unreasonableness that should bring the law in. I think we can agree that unnecessary journeys in bad conditions are undesirable, but we need to draw a line so that we can say when they should become illegal. Clearly, we cannot make them illegal just because they cross a national boundary. Sometimes, journeys are necessary, such as in the cases we have heard about from the Isle of Wight, the western isles, and highland farmers. We need to understand that the public’s understanding and acceptance matter. When circumstances are unacceptable because we care for the welfare of food and farm animals, if the law is not good enough we need to be prepared to change the law.

David Heath: I think we need to do two things. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I shall discuss the circumstances over recent months that were, let us be clear, totally unacceptable. We certainly need regulation and law that are fit for purpose and satisfy the requirements, but we need to enforce them rigorously. My view is that in areas of animal welfare, there should not be ifs and buts—we simply need rigorous enforcement. People need to understand that.
	People need to understand that if they are looking after animals, they have a duty that is set out in law and we will hold them to it. If they fail in that duty, there will be consequences. That is the message I want to express and I think it would be supported by every good stockman, male or female, in the country who understands that the care of the animals in their protection is of paramount importance.

Thomas Docherty: We all seem to be on the same side of the argument. Does the Minister agree that if we went for a blanket ban on exports, it would affect not just slaughter and circuses, but the racehorse industry and its involvement with the great French races? Our colleagues in Ireland would also suffer immensely.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. We must be careful what we wish for because there are sometimes unforeseen consequences. Coming from an area where we have lots of excellent stables producing first-class racehorses, I have to say that the way racehorses are transported is very different from the way the average sheep is transported. Let us understand that as a basic rule of thumb. However, it is not unreasonable to expect every animal that is transported to be transported in proper and appropriate transport. That is what I am determined to ensure.

Chris Williamson: Will the Minister give way?

David Heath: I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman as he is persistent.

Chris Williamson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me for the second time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) who spoke from the Dispatch Box called for a review to be undertaken to give an MOT, so to speak, to animal exportation, may I refer the Minister to article 3 of EU Regulation 1/2005 which states:
	“No person shall transport animals or cause animals to be transported in a way that is likely to cause injury or undue suffering to them.”
	Until we undertake the MOT review that my hon. Friend mentioned, we cannot know whether that regulation is being complied with. I suspect that on almost every occasion undue stress or injury is likely to be caused to the animals concerned. We cannot refute that until a review has been undertaken.

David Heath: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Yes, he is right to read out that article. The legal requirements that the EU sets down for transport have to be in compliance with it. I believe—I will always look to see whether we are right in this belief—that if the legal requirements laid down in the EU welfare and transport legislation are observed, there is a satisfactory level of protection for the animals being transported. It is a highly regulated trade, subject to multiple levels of official controls. There are significant and specific, but I think justified, requirements on the farming and haulage industries. The EU Commission estimates that on average it costs nearly €12,000 to upgrade a vehicle for long journeys, and there are other significant costs.
	There is already a regulatory framework. My task is to make sure that movements within this country comply with those regulations, and that we have the framework to make sure that that is the case each and every time. Where it is not the case, as it would appear may have happened recently—I have to couch what I say in careful terms—we take the appropriate actions.
	Those controls include the need for all commercial transporters of animals to be authorised. For long journeys, vehicles must be inspected and approved. Drivers must pass a competency test. For long journeys of more than eight hours between member states, transporters must apply for a journey log providing details of the proposed route from point of departure to point of destination. The timings of the journey must be realistic and in line with the maximum journey times and with the compulsory rest periods laid down in the legislation. Once the journey has been completed, the journey log has to be returned and the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which has been mentioned many times in the debate, checks to make sure that there have been no infringements of the legislation during the course of the completed journey. If there have been infringements, AHVLA will take the appropriate enforcement action.
	Somebody—I am afraid I do not remember who—suggested that that was a passive arrangement. It is not. I do not have the power to order my inspectors to inspect French vehicles on French roads or Spanish vehicles on Spanish roads. What I can do is make sure that the UK legislation, which is consistent with European legislation, is enforced rigorously. It must be observed.
	One of the first situations I faced after taking up this post was the regrettable events of 12 September at the port of Ramsgate. There were serious consequences, as has been well reported, with 40 animals having to be humanely killed. That led me to look very closely at what could be done to ensure the most rigorous and robust enforcement of the existing legislation in this country, and I am absolutely committed to doing that.
	The first thing I did was ask AHVLA to undertake a review of its existing procedures with a view to making the necessary improvements to ensure that, as far as possible—I was asked earlier to give this commitment—the events of 12 September would not be repeated. I have been given the review and accepted its conclusions, the vast majority of which, I am pleased to say, have already been implemented. As I have made plain publicly, and as other Members have said today, essentially I am asking for zero tolerance of lapses in animal welfare standards and rigorous checks on all journeys where there is a risk that we can identify.
	The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked about a fit and proper person test—[ Interruption. ] She is looking dubious, so obviously I have misrepresented her. I apologise and will let her have the credit anyway, even though it was my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet who raised the matter. I think that it is crucial to our understanding of what is and is not within the powers. There is no test in those precise terms, but article 10 of the regulation sets out the circumstances in which the competent authority can refuse to grant authorisation. Basically, that is when the applicant has a recent record of serious infringements of laws relating to the protection of animals, and that includes proving that the applicant has appropriate facilities.
	If, after authorisation, a transporter authorised in the UK commits offences, we can withdraw their authorisation. With regard to transporters authorised in other member states, we can report them to the equivalent competent authority and it should take action. Independently of that, we can prevent a transporter authorised by another competent authority operating here, but we obviously cannot stop them operating elsewhere. Those are important provisions that will come into effect, and I will use them when someone has been convicted of animal welfare infringements, but I make the point that they have to be convicted in a court of law; I cannot do it on the basis of suspicion or anecdotal evidence.

Thomas Docherty: I would like to take the Minister back to the report he has received. He will be aware that the NFU, the RSPCA and indeed this House are keen to see the contents of the report, so can he confirm when he will place a copy in the Library and whether he will sent one to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee?

David Heath: I was just about to come to that. The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. Nothing would have pleased me more than to have immediately published the report, which I was keen should be made public. However, on advice from lawyers in the Department, and having received a specific request from Kent trading standards department, which is pursuing criminal investigations, I reluctantly had to agree to withhold publication until those investigations and possible prosecution actions have been completed. There is a view that release of the document might prejudice those proceedings, which I am simply not prepared to do.
	Following Thanet district council’s decision on 29 November unilaterally to lift its temporary ban on the movement of live animal exports out of the port of
	Ramsgate, and the High Court hearing on Tuesday this week, I can explain the changes made to existing procedures by the AHVLA to help to prevent a recurrence of the events of 12 September. That is why I made a statement yesterday, at the earliest opportunity, so that the House was at least aware of the changes that we have made.
	Let me focus on the most important of those changes. The AHVLA has always undertaken a proportion of its inspections at the point of loading based on an assessment of risk. On the basis of the risk that I perceive following the Ramsgate incident, I have asked it to inspect 100% of loadings at the point of loading in order to make sure that the risk at that point is properly assessed. Those inspections are much better, in some ways, than inspections undertaken at the roadside or at points of rest or transfer such as ports. They enable the AHVLA inspectors to undertake over 30 different checks—there is a list—on the welfare of the animals and the facilities on board the vehicle. I want to make it plain that I will maintain that 100% inspection regime for transporters using Ramsgate for as long as I believe that the risk is high. I hope that it is helpful for the House to understand the approach taken.
	Earlier we heard reference to inspecting at the port itself. There is a good reason not to offload animals at the port if it can be avoided—doing so distresses the animals. It is better to have a visual inspection on-vehicle following the loading inspection, with veterinary controls at the point of loading. In everything we do, we are trying to make sure that we reduce the stress and improve the welfare of the animals as far as possible.
	There is a particular issue at the port of Ramsgate, which, it is fair to say, is not the ideal port for this purpose. I understand exactly why Thanet district council has concerns, as there are other ports that might be better equipped. Having said that, there are problems associated with trying to undertake this very difficult work with live animals when a substantial protest is going on. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse touched on this when he referred to perverse consequences. The protesters are people who care passionately about the welfare of animals, and I ask them to think about whether they are enhancing their welfare by exacerbating the job of the inspectors employed by the Department, who are already doing a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances; I thank them for the care that they take in protecting these animals. People will have to search their consciences in this regard, but I make that plea to them.
	I will not go into the other changes to the existing procedures because all those details are in the DEFRA press release and Members can look at them for themselves.
	Let me move on to the enforcement of the legislation by the AHVLA. The number of statutory notices served by the AHVLA on transporters using Ramsgate is clearly unacceptably high. Approximately 95% of transporters using Ramsgate are not authorised in Great Britain. All 30 statutory notices served by the AHVLA have been served on transporters who are authorised in other member states and whose vehicles are inspected and approved there or elsewhere. This is a significant issue. It is not about British livestock transporters using vehicles that have been licensed in this country; it is about overseas operators. When we make complaints about conduct, they go back to the authorising authority. In the case of one major operator registered in the Netherlands, we can send reports to the Dutch authorities,
	and I have been in touch with them. In fact, however, he does not operate in the Netherlands but is merely authorised by the Dutch Government, and that poses problems in terms of enforcement.

Anne McIntosh: We had similar protests at Brightlingsea when I was an MEP. At that time the port of Dover had closed for live animal transports, so everything came through Brightlingsea. Could the Minister repeat that 90% of live animal exports now go through Ramsgate? What has happened to Dover and Brightlingsea, because live trade used to go through those ports?

David Heath: As we have heard, Dover is no longer used. There may be more than one reason for that. I am not sure whether it was because of the damage to its docking facilities or because of the effect of the public protests on a port that has a high throughput of other traffic, but the perverse effect is that vehicles and shipping are being used at Ramsgate that might not be ideal for the purposes of the trade.

Laura Sandys: I thank the Minister for all the work he is doing, but what he outlined before the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) was the lack of clear accountability and the Department’s lack of ability, as the competent authority, to unravel the different layers of licensing and the different regimes under which licences and competencies are managed. To be frank, we as a Parliament should collectively be pushing this on Brussels, to ensure that there is absolute clarity that the Department can take action and enforce its responsibilities effectively, without having to go through a Byzantine licensing and competency regime.

David Heath: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. The EU Commission itself notes that the level of enforcement varies significantly between member states. Taking regulatory or enforcement action against transporters based abroad presents legal and technical challenges that do not exist in relation to British-based transporters.
	I do not like picking fights with those who argue strongly for animal welfare, but it is wrong for some welfare activists to claim that my Department and the AHVLA have been reluctant to take action against transporters when necessary. Since exports of livestock commenced from the port of Ramsgate, the AHVLA has inspected 113 vehicles at the port and supervised the loading of a further 68 vehicles at its premises of departure and three vehicles at control posts—that is 60% of the total number of vehicles presented for export via the ship, Joline—carrying more than 41,000 farm animals out of a total of 120,471 animals exported from Ramsgate.
	As a result of those inspections, the AHVLA has taken regulatory action on 41 occasions, serving 30 statutory notices and issuing 11 verbal warnings. Regulatory action by the AHVLA has resulted in four vehicles being prohibited from continuing their journeys. In addition, 10 vehicles approved and certified in another member state have been temporarily suspended from operating in Great Britain until the necessary modifications have been made to them. Three incidents have been referred to a local authority for investigation with a view to possible prosecution.
	I repeat and make clear that I will not tolerate the use of sub-standard or faulty vehicles that, in the view of the AHVLA, are not fit for purpose. I am confident that the AHVLA will continue to take robust action against any transporter using poorly equipped or designed vehicles in the future.
	I, the hon. Member for Ogmore and others have mentioned the EU Commission’s recent report on the impact of transport legislation. The EU has competence in the area of animal welfare during transport, so we cannot take any unilateral action. That would be contrary to the requirements of Council regulation 1/2005, which has been mentioned many times. This is an important legal point and it is essential that people understand it. Although article 1 of the legislation permits member states to take stricter national measures, they can only apply to transport taking place entirely in their own territory or during sea transport involving trade outside the EU. Stricter national measures do not apply to intra-Community trade, so we are not in a position take unilateral action.
	A point that has not been raised much today, but that has been raised outside the Chamber, is lairage at Ramsgate port. It has been claimed that Ramsgate port requires lairage facilities at or close to the port so that the requirements of the EU welfare in transport legislation can be properly enforced. That is not correct on two counts. First, there is no legal requirement for such facilities at a port that operates a roll-on/roll-off ferry service, such as the MV Joline. Those who claim that such facilities are needed at the port appear to have confused the legal requirements for livestock vessels, which animals are physically loaded on and off, with those for roll-on/roll-off vessels that do not require the loading or unloading of animals at a port.
	It must be remembered that the EU legislation places a legal responsibility on transporters to minimise the length of the journey. There is also a requirement that the competent authority must not detain animals in transport, unless it is strictly necessary for the welfare of the animals or for reasons of public safety. I have touched on the point that the routine unloading of animals is also wrong from the animal welfare perspective. The EU legislation acknowledges that the unloading of livestock during transport is stressful for the animals, can lead to injury and increases the risk of animal diseases.
	As a result, the AHVLA will unload animals only when it is absolutely necessary. Should it need to do so, because other options are not practical in the circumstances or because it is in the best interests of the welfare of the consignment as a whole, two farm-based facilities are available within one hour’s drive of the port. Those facilities have been used by the AHVLA on four occasions in the recent past. We believe that their existence continues to fulfil the legal obligations on DEFRA as the competent authority under the EU welfare and transport legislation.
	Some Members have pointed to the fact that the last audit inspection by the food and veterinary office, which is part of the European Commission, engendered exchanges concerning emergency unloading facilities close to the port of Dover. The facilities that we now have were not available when that report was written, so it is not directly relevant.
	The issues that the Commission has identified in the enforcement of the EU welfare and transport legislation are crucial to our understanding of this subject. This is
	where we all share common ground, even those who feel that we should not be exporting animals beyond our shores. The welfare of animals in transit is what we all want to achieve.
	Sadly, there are still cases in which severe animal welfare issues persist. The Commission has identified key areas of concern, not within the UK, but across the EU. Those are the transport of unfit animals, the overstocking of vehicles, the transport of animals in vehicles in which the internal height of the compartments is inappropriate, animals not receiving enough water during the journey, and animals being transported for longer than the maximum permitted journey time. Having identified those issues, I am disappointed that the Commission is not taking decisive action to address them. We will push hard for it to do so.
	This matter has not been raised when I have attended the Agriculture Council, but it was raised at the Council in June. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), while supporting the Commission’s desire for better enforcement, recorded his desire to see improvements to the legislation, particularly through a review of the journey time rules in the light of more recent scientific evidence. That point has been raised by several Members in this debate. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government could not support the demand for a maximum limit of eight hours on all journeys involving livestock because the scientific evidence does not support such a limit for all major species of livestock.
	The committee on agriculture and rural development of the European Parliament appears to support that view in its recent report on the protection of animals during transport. The report recognises, among other things, that such a demand alone has no scientific basis, and considers that animal welfare during transport in some instances depends more on proper vehicle facilities and on the proper handling of animals, as documented in the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority of December 2010, than on the overall length of the journey.
	Although we will continue to press the EU Commission to update EU legislation on welfare in transport in line with available scientific evidence, it has decided to take a more strategic approach by tying the rules on transport more closely to requirements in the official food and feed controls legislation—regulation 882/2004—which is currently being re-written. Although it is possible that such a move could help to solve some of the problems with enforcement mentioned by the EU Commission in its report, it is too early to form a judgment on whether that is the most appropriate method of doing so.

Thomas Docherty: The Minister is doing an excellent job of setting out a complex set of arguments. He will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) suggested that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee look at this issue, given its complexity. I know that the Minister has covered a lot of topics, but before he concludes his remarks will he tell the House his observations on the merits of that suggestion, and say what issues could be looked at? Would he welcome an opportunity to give evidence to that Committee?

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that and this is probably an appropriate place to begin drawing my comments to a close. Some of what I have said has been a little complex and dry, but it is important to set out the legal background to some of the issues and I hope that I have answered in main the points raised by hon. Members.
	I want to thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate, including the hon. Members for South Thanet, for Bristol East, for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). Although the speech by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) was brief, it was beautifully formed in a pre-Christmas spirit that somehow seemed so appropriate. All those Members have practical experience in this area.
	I also thank those Members with a genuine interest, concern and expertise in this area such as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, for whom I have a great deal of respect, as well as the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Southend West (Mr Amess).

Thomas Docherty: What about the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)?

David Heath: I have mentioned the hon. Member for Ogmore many times and covered what he said almost word for word. It is unnecessary for me to say again that he and I agree on this issue to a large extent, and that is as it should be because this matter ought to transcend party labels.
	I said that I do not want a formal review on this issue, and I do not see any great attraction for one in the Department at the moment. I will, however, continue to consider whether I should change my view on that. However, I want to review all our animal welfare issues, and live exports is just one among many. Whatever we do, I want to ensure that this country has the highest levels of animal welfare and protection—I hope I have given a flavour of that to the House—and that regulations and laws are enforced rigorously. I want an environment in which people understand that they must carry out that duty if they look after animals, whether a domestic pet, flock of sheep, herd of cows or killer whale. Whatever animal people look after, they must do so properly as it is their responsibility and we will enforce that.
	If the Committee wants to undertake a review—it is not for me to tell it whether it should or not—I would be delighted for it to do so and happy to provide any evidence and support it needs to do its work properly. That is a matter for the Committee to decide. The Government welcome this debate and the opportunity to put on the record some of the things we have done and will do to ensure that what happened at Ramsgate on 12 September does not happen again. Wherever possible we must maintain the highest possible levels of animal protection in this country, which is what the House wants us to do.

Laura Sandys: I thank the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for co-sponsoring the debate.
	I also thank all other Members, from farmers to animal campaigners, who took part in it. We have had a full spectrum of views, but we have been bound together by our common purpose of considering animal welfare.
	I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for his contribution and the Minister and his team. I represent the people of Ramsgate, and we want the most robust regulation that can be put in place. We welcome the statement about zero tolerance, which must be upheld. We would like to establish a definition of a fit and proper operator of the trade. One day, we will resolve the trade through the EU. In the meantime, I look to the Minister’s good offices to ensure that it is regulated effectively.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of live animal exports and animal welfare.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	privileges

Ordered,
	That, with effect from 7 January 2013, Mr Kevin Barron, Sir Paul Beresford, Annette Brooke, Mr Robert Buckland, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Tom Clarke, Mr Geoffrey Cox, Fiona O’Donnell, Heather Wheeler and Dr Alan Whitehead be members of the Committee of Privileges.—(Mr Syms.)

STANDARDS

Ordered,
	That, with effect from 7 January 2013, Mr Kevin Barron, Sir Paul Beresford, Annette Brooke, Mr Robert Buckland, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Tom Clarke, Mr Geoffrey Cox, Fiona O’Donnell, Heather Wheeler and Dr Alan Whitehead be members of the Committee on Standards.—(Mr Syms.)

delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith ( Order, 29 November, and  Standing Order No. 118(6)),

House of Commons Members’ Fund

That pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1 October 2012 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948:
	(1) The whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and
	(2) The whole of the Treasury contribution paid to the Fund.— (Mr  Syms .)
	Question agreed to.

SEXUAL HEALTH DATA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Ann Coffey: Over the past 20 years, we have seen numerous high profile inquiries and serious case reviews after children have been harmed and abused. Each one has said that failures in data sharing and ineffective inter-agency working played a significant role in the child’s injury or death. Lord Laming’s progress report on child protection in 2009 following the Victoria Climbié and baby P inquiries stated:
	“Despite the fact that the Government gave clear guidance on information sharing in 2006 and updated it in October 2008, there continues to be a real concern across all sectors, but particularly in the health services, about the risk of breaching confidentiality or data protection law by sharing concerns about a child’s safety. The laws governing data protection and privacy are still not well understood by frontline staff or their managers. It is clear that different agencies (and their legal advisers) often take different approaches.”
	Disappointingly, that was echoed nearly three years later in the recent report by Sue Berelowitz, the deputy Children’s Commissioner, into sexual exploitation in gangs and groups. She highlighted the difficulties that she had experienced in collecting data from health agencies.
	The overarching aim of year one of her inquiry was to identify the prevalence of child sexual exploitation and the warning signs that victims present, and to quantify the number of children at risk. She identified 16,500 children as being at high risk, using multiple indicators, and said that the figure would have been higher if the inquiry’s attempt to obtain health data had not been frustrated by “patchy” and “inconsistent” responses.
	Of the 14 “signs” or behaviours generally seen in children who are already being sexually exploited, six relate to data collected by health organisations. Those health signs are: physical injuries; drug or alcohol misuse; repeat sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy and terminations; poor mental health, and self harm and thoughts of suicide. It was therefore important for the purposes of her inquiry that the deputy Children’s Commissioner was able to access that information.
	Initially, it was her intention to collect individual level data in relation to children who have repeatedly attended clinics with sexually transmitted diseases and had had more than one abortion. The intention was to share the data with other known CSE indicators to assess the prevalence of child sexual exploitation.
	However, because of current regulations it was not possible to get individual data on terminations. On sharing sexual health data, there were different legal opinions from the Department of Health, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and individual primary care trusts. The Department took the position that it would share its legal counsel and direct areas to not share that data. Aggregate national data provided by the Health Protection Agency and the Department of Health showed that 11,800 children had presented at a sexual health clinic on more than one occasion, 900 of whom had a repeat sexually transmitted infection, and 1,193 children under the age of 16 had an abortion who
	had also had at least one earlier termination. Those numbers indicate how important it is to have individual sexual health data to identify children at risk of child sexual exploitation.
	The Department said a decision on substance misuse/mental health data could be made at a local level. Services operating in 41% of primary care trusts around mental health provided individual level data, while services operating in 30% of PCTs around substance misuse provided it. Those differences in data provided by PCTs indicate the wide variation in interpretations of existing law, regulations and guidance. A central request to the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, which collects individual data on people accessing substance misuse units nationally, was also refused due to concerns about breaching the Data Protection Act 1998 and health regulations. In the end, the National Treatment Agency provided aggregate level data that was not possible to match with the other indicator data obtained at an individual level.
	In answer to my parliamentary question last week, I am aware that the Minister has commissioned Dame Fiona Caldicott to lead a review on the sharing of health data that strikes an appropriate balance between the protection of confidential and identifiable information, and the use and sharing of that information for research and a range of other purposes. Given the extent of the numbers of children attending sexual health clinics, it is crucial that, for example, the frequency of visits to a sexual health clinic, which may be an indicator of sexual exploitation, is capable of being shared alongside other health data at a local children’s safeguarding board level if we are serious about better protecting children from child sexual exploitation. The problem is not only confined to the health professional sharing information with non-health professionals, but it seems that there are problems with health professionals sharing information with each other.
	Anecdotally, the other day I was told by a GP that he had contacted a health visitor to discuss an issue relating to a family he was concerned about, and was told by the health visitor that he had to get the patient’s permission to do so. The General Medical Council issued guidance to doctors in July 2012 on information sharing, but of course this was not issued to health visitors. Unless we resolve the confusion about data sharing, it is going to result in different practices in different areas. In some areas, emphasis on confidentiality may mean that a child is continuing to be exposed to risk of child sexual exploitation because data that could identify the risk are not being shared, while in another areas, because of different practices, appropriate interventions are being made.
	I have come across similar barriers to data sharing as chair of the all-party group for runaway and missing children and adults. It seemed to us incredible that Ofsted was not able to share the names and addresses of children’s homes with the police because of existing regulations. I am pleased that the Government are now consulting on a change to the regulations that would allow this to happen. On the face of it, it seemed like a good principle to keep a child’s address secret. However, in trying to safeguard one piece of information about a child’s life, we were exposing that child to undue risk. It is the same with sharing sexual health data, where we
	are often looking at complex issues of confidentiality versus safeguarding. It is a shame that having sorted out data in one area, we still see barriers in another.
	This is a difficult area, and it is made all the more difficult by the fact that there is separate guidance from the Department of Health and the Department for Education. To give one example, the Department of Heath guidance about patient confidentiality issued in 2003 says that NHS professionals must take all necessary steps to secure any information capable of identifying an individual examined or treated for any sexually transmitted disease, and that it shall not be disclosed except where there is consent to do so or to prevent the spread of the disease. The updated guidance on November 2010 says that decisions about disclosures of confidentially sensitive information must be made case by case. Having read both these sets of guidance, I find it easy to see how there can be widely differing interpretations of what data to share and with whom.
	We also have statutory guidance from the Department for Education entitled, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”. It was published in 2010, but is currently being revised. The 2012 consultation paper stresses that partners and agencies should proactively share information with each other and with the local safeguarding children boards. It says that from 2010 to 2011, 615,000 children in England were referred to children’s social care services by individuals who were concerned about their welfare. The guidance goes on:
	“A consistent message from research, which has been reinforced in every high profile inquiry on child protection, is that children are best protected when professionals are clear about what is required of them individually, and how they need to work together... It is important that children receive the right help at the right time. For that to happen, everyone who comes in contact with them has to play a role in identifying concerns early, sharing information, and taking prompt, informed action. This will involve a range of professionals - for example midwives, health visitors, GPs, early year’s professionals, teachers, police officers, youth workers voluntary workers and social workers. It will require all professionals to be vigilant and take prompt action when they suspect that a child is suffering harm.”
	The guidance also points out that, under section 11 of the Children Act 2004, public heath and NHS organisations are among those key organisations that have a statutory responsibility to make arrangements to ensure their functions are carried out with regard to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. The Government are rightly urging local agencies to work together more effectively to safeguard children from child sexual exploitation, but the confusing and conflicting guidelines from the Department of Health and the Department for Education are creating barriers to effective data-sharing arrangements at a local level.
	The confusion over current guidelines on sharing health data is giving rise to different interpretations and practices locally, which has led to a postcode lottery when it comes to safeguarding children. I have another anecdotal example. At a child sexual exploitation meeting in Greater Manchester where professionals were sharing data to try to assess the risk to a particular girl, it transpired that the girl had attended accident and emergency for treatment—a fact that had not been disclosed by the health worker present. She subsequently said that she thought that health information was confidential.
	We are also facing big organisational change in the health service and in Greater Manchester. For example, several sexual health services run by different primary
	care trusts are due to be transferred to 10 local councils in 2013. I am pleased that Greater Manchester is trying to work towards a consistent interpretation of the different guidance from the Department of Health and the Department for Education for the whole of the Greater Manchester. It cannot be right that the safety of a child at risk of child sexual exploitation is dependent on where they live.
	I hope that, in her review, Dame Caldicott will bring together existing guidance from both Departments that will allow local safeguarding children boards to share information in the best interests of the child. The importance of the proper collection of data and data sharing cannot be over-emphasised. The all-party group’s report in June emphasised the link between going missing and the risk of sexual exploitation, but no one fact will be enough and often something that does not seem significant to one agency might assume greater significance when placed with a fact picked up by another agency.
	For example, a child who is reported missing for repeated periods, but not for any great length of time, might be the same child who visits a sexual health clinic with an older man. Those two factors being put together would set alarm bells ringing, whereas in themselves they would not seem significant. That is the value of sharing information. It is surely wrong that a child can walk out of a sexual health clinic back to a predator without alarm bells being rung. I am not advocating the routine sharing of every visit by every child to a sexual health clinic, but I believe that health and other professionals need better guidelines and training about when they should share information in the interests of safeguarding a particular child.
	Given that identification practices of child sexual exploitation vary significantly across the country, with many areas adopting a reactive approach, accurate data are essential. That is particularly important in relation to black and minority ethnic victims. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner found it difficult to find information about that group of victims, although it established under-reporting of child sexual exploitation in BME communities. That information is significant, given that the general perception appears to be that sexual exploitation by gangs and groups is primarily a crime committed against white children. We have to be able to establish the true extent of sexual exploitation in BME communities, as well as understanding the underlying reasons for under-reporting. Those children have a right to our protection. That makes it even more critical that these sexual health indicators, which indicate risk, should be shared with other agencies.
	Sharing data on health is vital in protecting children. These data will be of most value when matched with the data collected by police on missing incidents, by local authorities on absence from school and by youth offending teams, to identify and safeguard all children at risk of being sexually exploited. Lord Laming described the situation eloquently when he said:
	“Whilst the law rightly seeks to preserve individuals’ privacy and confidentiality, it should not be used (and was never intended) as a barrier to appropriate information sharing between professionals. The safety and welfare of children is of paramount importance, and agencies may lawfully share confidential information about the child or the parent, without consent, if doing so is in the public interest.”
	This week Sue Berelowitz summed up the problem when she told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that misunderstandings about the Data Protection Act were
	“getting in the way of children being protected”.
	It is surely time to ensure clearer guidance about the disclosure of health information in the interests of protecting vulnerable children, who should be the main focus of our concern. I hope the Minister will respond by sending out a strong message to that effect.

Anna Soubry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the work she does. Her energy and commitment to the most vulnerable people in our society are admirable and rightly well known. She has raised some important and disturbing issues. There is nothing wrong with anecdotes, because after all, that is what evidence is—it is, of course, anecdotal. As we have heard today, and as we know from the work undertaken by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, a large number of our young people are victims of sexual exploitation and abuse. Tragically, many of them do not even see themselves as victims. This is a very difficult subject; it is all about striking the right balance.
	The deputy Children’s Commissioner recently noted that in preparing her report, she asked for certain data on young people attending sexual health clinics, as the hon. Lady explained. The deputy commissioner wanted the data to enable matching with other data to give an estimate of the numbers of young people suffering from sexual exploitation. The Department of Health took legal advice on whether it would be possible to share the sexual health data requested by the deputy commissioner. Our legal advice said that, given the limits on disclosure in the legislation and the fact that the data requested might identify individual patients, they should not be shared. I understand that around 60% of primary care trusts provided some data as requested. That is clearly a good example of confusion, with one piece of legal advice seemingly at odds with another. The hon. Lady is therefore right to make the point that she did about her great concern, which I share.
	I understand that the point about the advice was that it was the deputy commissioner who had made that request, which is different from the point that the deputy commissioner—as well as the hon. Lady—is most concerned about, which is: what happens with data sharing out in the real world when children come along to sex clinics? Unfortunately, we hear many stories of things going wrong—we are all aware of those—but I would say, I hope with confidence, that in the overwhelming majority of cases things go well.
	I pay tribute to all those in the health and other services who do a magnificent job in protecting our children. Sometimes we forget that. My experience at the criminal bar, for what it is worth, taught me that those professionals involved in the protection of children—the hon. Lady read out a long list of the organisations involved—use their own common sense and compassion as well as all the guidance that is available. Anyone involved in such work should always be motivated by an overriding desire and determination to protect the child. That should be at the forefront of their considerations.
	We know from the deputy Children’s Commissioner that repeat attendances at a sexual health clinic are one of the key indicators of potential child sexual exploitation, which is a form of child abuse. Sexual health clinics are open access. That means that anyone can go into a sexual health clinic and receive free and confidential advice and treatment. Patients do not need to go to a clinic in the area where they live, or in the area where they are registered with a GP. They do not even have to give their correct name, age, address or other details in order to receive treatment. The purpose of that is to ensure that anyone, regardless of their age or circumstances, can get the advice and treatment that they need to protect their own sexual health and that of their sexual partners.
	We know from a number of studies that confidentiality is highly valued by young people, as I know the hon. Lady will understand. They perceive that the services offered by clinics are likely to be more confidential than going to a GP. We need to reach a point at which any child sexual exploitation can be identified by the health or other professionals who come into contact with the child. Those professionals then need to build up a relationship of trust so that the child feels able to work with them and others to tackle the issues that they face and to make the necessary disclosures to enable action to be taken to protect the child and, if necessary, to bring the perpetrator to justice. Of course, that does not always happen. We know from the deputy Children’s Commissioner’s work that, all too often, the children do not see themselves as exploited or abused. That can result, in the initial stages, in the abuse not being identified by the professionals.
	The starting point for everyone who receives health care is that, generally speaking, information about them is not shared without their consent. That is rightly at the heart of the working practices of all health professionals. Additional legislation limits the disclosure by the NHS of information that identifies a person who has been examined or treated for a sexually transmitted illness. That is to ensure that people do not feel reluctant to come forward for testing and treatment. There is agreement on that, too. The legislation allows the information to be disclosed in order to treat, or prevent the spread of, sexually transmitted illnesses. For example, the information might need to be disclosed to the patient’s sexual partners to prevent the spread of the illness.
	For under-16s, specific concerns and issues must be addressed. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides that the age of consent is 16 and that sexual activity involving children under 16 is unlawful. The age of consent is there to protect children aged under 16 from exploitation and abuse. It is accepted that children under 16 are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, and that they do not have the necessary maturity to make the decisions that young adults can make. That is why we have an age of consent. It is to protect children from exploitation and abuse.
	All health professionals should be aware of the age of consent, and of child protection and safeguarding issues, and I believe that most of them are; they take the matter very seriously. When dealing with a child under 16, they
	should be alert to the possibility that that young person is being exploited or abused. It goes without saying that a 15-year-old cannot make a life choice to become a prostitute. Advice and guidance on child protection are available in “Working Together to Safeguard Children” and “What to do if you are worried a child is being abused”. The advice and guidance are available in sex clinics and they are also issued to workers in this field.
	All sexual health clinics should have the guidelines and the referral pathways, as they are called, in place for risk assessment and management for child sexual abuse. They should use a standardised pro-forma for risk assessment for all those under 16 and also for those between 17 and 18 where there is a cause for concern or learning difficulties. They should be aware of local child protection procedures and work collaboratively under local safeguarding children arrangements to ensure victims are identified and protected. In my view, perhaps most of all, they should use their own common sense. If a child under 16 presents who has clearly been involved in sexual activity and where it is clear to the worker that there is an element of abuse or any damage caused by sexual activity, alarm bells should be ringing immediately that this is a child who needs protection, help and assistance if only to disclose what has been going on that has led them to be in that position. It is very difficult work, and it often takes a great deal of effort and intervention even to get a child to disclose what has been going on. It then requires even more work to take them through the long, difficult journey to full disclosure and, as I say, to protect them fully and, if necessary, to bring the perpetrators of the abuse to justice.
	However, given the issues raised by the report from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, we think it would be valuable to work with the NHS, Royal Colleges and other key stakeholders to develop guidance on effective information sharing within the law in order to identify and protect the victims of child sexual exploitation. As we work through those issues, we will need to strike a careful balance between sharing data in a way that achieves our goal of helping victims of sexual exploitation, without discouraging them, or other young people, from visiting a sexual health clinic.
	As I said—I hope I did say this at the beginning—we have set up a health working group on child sexual exploitation, and it is working with the experts, the professional bodies and the voluntary sector on these issues. It will produce a report and recommendations in the spring next year. That report will determine the future direction of our work. We want to work closely with bodies representing health care professionals because they hold the key to making progress. We want to make sure that they can identify and support these young people to help them get the help they need at the earliest stage possible.
	Finally, I thank the hon. Lady again for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House and for raising all the issues she has about identifying the need for real work to be done in the future to make sure, frankly, that we get it right.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.